I think I understand May's strategy now. She will keep repeating "we want a deep and meaningful relationship", "we want a deep and meaningful relationship ", "we want a deep and meaningful relationship ", again and again and again until the EU cave into her demands just to get her to shut the fuck up!. It is all based on her "strong and stable" , "strong and stable", master plan.
Personally I always get confused between the deep and meaningful relationship mantra she trots out re: the EU and the deep and special partnership we have with the U.S. or is it the other way round?
Anyhow that fact that she’s being paid about £170k a year to say ‘strong and stable’ and other sound bites is very pleasing. Gives me a real sense of purpose and faith that the system works
I think I understand May's strategy now. She will keep repeating "we want a deep and meaningful relationship", "we want a deep and meaningful relationship ", "we want a deep and meaningful relationship ", again and again and again until the EU cave into her demands just to get her to shut the fuck up!. It is all based on her "strong and stable" , "strong and stable",
In the national interest would need to be in there somewhere.
I think I understand May's strategy now. She will keep repeating "we want a deep and meaningful relationship", "we want a deep and meaningful relationship ", "we want a deep and meaningful relationship ", again and again and again until the EU cave into her demands just to get her to shut the fuck up!. It is all based on her "strong and stable" , "strong and stable", master plan.
Why not? After all, brexit is brexit is brexit is brexit is...
Really, really good analysis of a toxic situation and that cancelling Brexit still remains the best solution.
There are and always were discrete options: 1) No deal - fairly traumatic for UK plc 2) Canada - not much better 3) Norway + CU - Brexit in name only 4) Abort the process
Option 1 has virtually disappeared. Canada +++ doesn't exist so 2018 is a choice between option 2 and 3.
Option 4 comes into play should option 3 beat option 2. Commentators are already stating what's the point of Brexit?!
For now we have a choice between Canada and Norway. If people thought phase one was brutal on the UK, then they should wait to see phase two! The Brexiloons will continue with their walk away mantra sponsored by the Mail. The rest of us can simply keep calm and observe... with the assistance of commentators such as Fintan O'Toole.
Telling these people that immigrants are okay is not going to change their feelings. Because those feelings are not rooted in reality, they are not susceptible to this kind of argument.
1. One new EU migrant arriving for long term residence in the UK every 5 minutes, is a reality, as are the housing shortage, overcrowded schools and public services. These problems stem from this island being overcrowded and the inability to build infrastructure to match this increased demand in matching time.
There is an imperial nationalism and an anti-imperial nationalism; one sets out to dominate the world,
2. For me, I can't remember the last Brit I spoke to who wanted to "dominate the world"
On the one hand Brexit is fuelled by nostalgic fantasies of Empire 2.0, a reconstructed global trading empire in which the old colonies will be reconnected to the mother country.
3. For me, I can't remember the last Brit I spoke to who could even name the "old colonies" let alone wanted them "reconnected to the mother country". I hardly think buying a shipment of New Zealand lamb counts as "reconnecting to the mother country". This part of the article is tosh.
After the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, nation states lost confidence in their core mission of protecting and enabling the fundamental rights of their citizens to dignity, equality and security
4. What on earth does this mean - "lost confidence in their core mission of protecting the rights of their citizens to..."
Does the writer believe that the UK Gov't is not prepared to protect the rights of it's citizens ?
Some good points made, but an awful lot of waffle in there as well.
I cannot claim to be Fintan O'Toole, so this is, necessarily, my take on his comments - I may misconstrue them.
1. Parts of the island(s) comprising the United Kingdom may be overcrowded, but that is emphatically not the case for the country as a whole. In general, migration from within the EU is less likely to have the sort of impact on schools and public services, and even housing that you suggest, because of the age profile and marital status of many of the migrants.
Generally speaking, EU migrants are young and able, often with skills that are no longer valued or learnt by UK nationals (a classic example of this is the hospitality industry). In common with other migrant groups, there is a tendency towards chain migration - so that you find people go to places where they know people - and also towards multiple occupancy of properties. This, and the reaction of some towards the migrant group, is exactly the same as has happened with West Indians, Irish, Asians, Dutch, etc., etc. What is different in terms of EU migrants is that, within the EU, migration did not feel like a permanent decision. Some came and stayed, but many did not, it did not have the same feeling of permanence as, for example, going to Australia or the USA.
There are families with children in school, obviously, even in the sunlit uplands of Northern Ireland - but these children (not all) have a habit (as do lots of migrant children, possibly because they are multilingual) of being high academic achievers in school in comparison to the native born students. This means two things, firstly teachers do not have to work as hard with these pupils and, secondly, like many of the children of Asian immigrants, if they stay they are likely to provide a larger proportion of the next generation of professionals in the UK.
2. There clearly is an imperial nationalism (the history of the British Empire, the US's "manifest destiny", and virtually everything that Vladimir Putin does, would seem to prove the point). Like you, I have not met anyone seeking to take over the World (assuming that Pinky and The Brain doesn't count), but there have been more than a few who have expressed, for example, a belief that Ireland should give up its independence and become part of a new United Kingdom. And there are many who look back with approval to a time when the Commonwealth was a less independent body than today (I will almost gloss over people like Liam Fox, who suggest a return to the buccaneering "trading" of people like Sir Francis Drake).
3. No, perhaps, after all, I may have to introduce you to the wonders of Liam Fox, and a number of leading lights in the Conservative Party that have made very clear that, despite having abandoned the Commonwealth to its own devices before, and the discrete economic interests of its member states, that this precisely what they would like to see happen. Apparently, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, et al, are just queuing up to offer supremely preferential trading arrangements....
4. I think Fintan O'Toole is suggesting that Thatcherism and Reaganomics fundamentally undermined the social contract that existed, or was at least implied, within Western democratic systems. They were revolutionary, tearing down the old order and replacing an essentially communitarian outlook in government and society with an individualistic and selfish one. There are many, I am sure, that will say this is only natural, a Darwinian impulse (I, on the other hand, have a degree of nervousness about people seeking to bring Darwin's theory into the political sphere).
What Fintan O'Toole is suggesting is not that the UK Government cannot protect, or is incapable of protecting, the rights of citizens to dignity, equality and security, rather that, in common with other administrations begat by Ronnie and Maggie, they choose not to.
Perhaps, like me, he's a dangerous lefty.
1. As I have said before, I am not in favour of telling folk where in the UK they can settle. One hopes that migrants settle where the work and housing are available, but I wonder if this is true in practice.
I haven't seen a breakdown of the age/marital status etc, but it's a big stretch to say that EU migrants are less likely to have the sort of impact as I described on schools/public services/housing. An average person from the EU is the same as an average person already in the UK - and we can each measure what demand we make as individuals on the above items. I don't think it makes a difference where folk originated.
The educational standard / "quality" of migrant is not an issue for me, and I agree that many future experts (like prof Heinz Woolf) will emerge from this part of the population.
2. Yes, there are a few that hold this view, but again I don't think it is representative of a big section of Brits, nor a core reason why folk voted Brexit.
3. Just like the UK - any country that wants to buy our stuff will be encouraged to do so, and I don't think those former Commonwealth nations will be holding any sort of grudge about being "abandoned" by UK many years ago. I was in Sth Africa recently and those guys are itching to revive the old days of Cape fruit and veg being sold into the UK post Brexit.
4. Yes, maybe you are right. The Trump speech tonight was a bit scary.
Nothing wrong with a dangerous lefty, just thank heaven we live in a country with freedom of speech.
You keep banging on about this new migrant every 5 minutes as the root cause of overstretched services. It simply isn't the case, if it were then the baby born every 100 seconds would be destroying our essential services.
Exactly. So the birth rate, increased life expectancy and non-eu immigration are causing a much higher impact to the population so why focus on an area of great financial benefit to the UK?
If we had an infrastructure designed to deal with 58m population which expands/contracts with the expected birth/death rate, then no problem. However, when you suddenly add 6 million people in 15 years then demand is likely to outstrip supply.
There may be a baby born every 100 seconds - but folk die too !
To keep the UK population to a sustainable level, we could outlaw/tax bigger families (China stylee) - no thanks For increased life expectancy we could enforce the Logan's Run system - no thanks
So there is not much we can do to make an impact, other than stem the flow - even if it's just a 5 year breather.
Non-EU migration is a fully controllable and visa based system for which the UK Government is accountable. Yes, I am sure there are abuses, but these folk do not have the free movement that EU citizens have.
As for the "area of great financial benefit to the UK" - it's not about the money, money, money. For me it's about the quality of life for the 66 million that live here now.
1. As I have said before, I am not in favour of telling folk where in the UK they can settle. One hopes that migrants settle where the work and housing are available, but I wonder if this is true in practice.
I haven't seen a breakdown of the age/marital status etc, but it's a big stretch to say that EU migrants are less likely to have the sort of impact as I described on schools/public services/housing. An average person from the EU is the same as an average person already in the UK - and we can each measure what demand we make as individuals on the above items. I don't think it makes a difference where folk originated.
The educational standard / "quality" of migrant is not an issue for me, and I agree that many future experts (like prof Heinz Woolf) will emerge from this part of the population.
2. Yes, there are a few that hold this view, but again I don't think it is representative of a big section of Brits, nor a core reason why folk voted Brexit.
3. Just like the UK - any country that wants to buy our stuff will be encouraged to do so, and I don't think those former Commonwealth nations will be holding any sort of grudge about being "abandoned" by UK many years ago. I was in Sth Africa recently and those guys are itching to revive the old days of Cape fruit and veg being sold into the UK post Brexit.
4. Yes, maybe you are right. The Trump speech tonight was a bit scary.
Nothing wrong with a dangerous lefty, just thank heaven we live in a country with freedom of speech.
1. In effect, with Freedom of Movement, intra-EU economic migration is the same as internal economic migration (or Irish to the UK). Because of the lack of barriers, migration is not necessarily assumed to be permanent. Historically, in these circumstances, people migrate at an earlier age and without families. This is not to say that migrants might not marry during their sojourn - almost every Irish family will have relatives abroad who are the result of such marriage. The same patterns can be seen for just about every migrant group other than refugees. I'm on my phone, and struggle with links, but there are research papers easily available on EU migration (I'm inclined to lean towards the ones published by Parliament).
The age profile (most migrants are in their 20s or 30s), the general lack of children and/or parents brought with them, and the fact that most are in work, would logically suggest that they will be less of a drain on resources than the wider population.
Depending on the migrants' background, obviously, things can change over time, as people settle, but I very much doubt that, with the exception of the Roma (who are, frankly, persecuted in many parts if Europe - and who, along with the homosexuals, were not offered a state of their own following their experience of the Holocaust), there is likely to be significant numbers of extended family members seeking to enter the country as family members rather than economic migrants in their own right (second or third generation chain migration, where relatives may help find a job and accommodation, but really do not intend migrants to live with them).
2. I don't think that Fintan O'Toole suggested, other than a nostalgic feeling, that an imperial nationalism is widely and sincerely held among the majority in the UK (though it appears more popular among those that see themselves as opinion formers in the media and politics than the wider population - and it is these people that helped create the "sore tooth"), rather that it is one variety of English nationalism. We could debate forever the degree to which those things that might be ascribed to imperial nationalism are real or ironic.... Or possibly not.
If influential people and opinion formers (because they own media channels and shape the debate) hold to an imperial nationalist line, even if it represents a tiny percentage of the population, it will be important. I will say that the number of times I have read comments (often below online articles in The Guardian) where suggestions have been made that the UK should threaten the EU with military force, or to withdraw defence cooperation within NATO, if the EU was not willing to give the UK what it wanted, would make me believe that imperial nationalism may be more prevalent than we would have expected.
As an aside, I did like the fact that he shares my view that the historical triumph of English nationalism has been the construction of a Britishness largely in its own image.
3. I've been buying South African fruit for years (since the end of Apartheid - I am right on like that). Membership if the EU has not prevented this trade. Indeed, the continued importation of South African fruit in the days of Apartheid was the cause of prolonged industrial action in Ireland (look up the Dunnes Stores workers dispute).
I do agree that, provided it is in their interests, all countries will trade with each other. And yes, in the Commonwealth a number of countries are looking forward to the opportunities provided by Brexit, because they see the renegotiation of WTO schedules as an opportunity to increase their access to the current EU market. We have already seen the first shots across the bow, in conjunction with Argentina and the USA, in this regard. But it's not because they are Commonwealth countries, or in any way pro-UK, their reaction to the outline agreement between the UK and EU27 on splitting the EU's WTO quotas is, if anything, anti-UK (certainly anti-UK producer).
The Commonwealth countries will not, as you say, be holding a grudge, but equally they won't be doing any favours. They will, quite rightly, prioritise their own interests and seek to maximise trading benefits, including, potentially, dealing with the EU first in trade negotiations.
It is Liam Fox and his ilk that have made comments that suggests that at least some at the heart of Brexit believe the Commonwealth will, like the 7th Cavalry in the old Westerns, ride to the rescue for UK trade. It may happen, and I'm very definitely not saying that it won't happen, but I'm fairly sure that neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Justin Trudeau are John Wayne.
I find some of the recent posts illuminating and informative. However we are told brexiters knew exactly what they were voting for and why, so they all knew all this stuff anyway...well apart from those who keep repeating 'we'll have to wait and see'.
You keep banging on about this new migrant every 5 minutes as the root cause of overstretched services. It simply isn't the case, if it were then the baby born every 100 seconds would be destroying our essential services.
Exactly. So the birth rate, increased life expectancy and non-eu immigration are causing a much higher impact to the population so why focus on an area of great financial benefit to the UK?
If we had an infrastructure designed to deal with 58m population which expands/contracts with the expected birth/death rate, then no problem. However, when you suddenly add 6 million people in 15 years then demand is likely to outstrip supply.
There may be a baby born every 100 seconds - but folk die too !
To keep the UK population to a sustainable level, we could outlaw/tax bigger families (China stylee) - no thanks For increased life expectancy we could enforce the Logan's Run system - no thanks
So there is not much we can do to make an impact, other than stem the flow - even if it's just a 5 year breather.
Non-EU migration is a fully controllable and visa based system for which the UK Government is accountable. Yes, I am sure there are abuses, but these folk do not have the free movement that EU citizens have.
As for the "area of great financial benefit to the UK" - it's not about the money, money, money. For me it's about the quality of life for the 66 million that live here now.
@Valiantphil, I admire your steadfast ability to just keep repeating the same thing with no additional evidence to support what you are saying. It is almost like you have been put into bat (nightwatchman?) by the Brexiteers on here, well done for keeping going.
The two most expensive periods of a persons life are when they are young and when they are old. Young because of the cost of medicine, birth and schooling and old because of the cost of care. The vast majority of migrants have finished schooling and are not near retirement age, they therefore cost the least and are in no way like the demographics of the people that are already here.
So we take the brightest and the best without paying for their education and early health costs. They are the brightest and the best because they have actually got off the backsides and moved to improve their lives. This will obviously have a negative effect on the countries they are leaving.
Most migrants then retire back to their country of origin saving us the costs of old age, but they continue to buy products that they got used to in whatever country they moved to.
What you say about the rapid increase in population in some areas is true but why haven't our government been using the additional tax receipts to expand the services that are needed. In fact in the last seven years they have been reducing services.
You keep banging on about this new migrant every 5 minutes as the root cause of overstretched services. It simply isn't the case, if it were then the baby born every 100 seconds would be destroying our essential services.
Exactly. So the birth rate, increased life expectancy and non-eu immigration are causing a much higher impact to the population so why focus on an area of great financial benefit to the UK?
If we had an infrastructure designed to deal with 58m population which expands/contracts with the expected birth/death rate, then no problem. However, when you suddenly add 6 million people in 15 years then demand is likely to outstrip supply.
There may be a baby born every 100 seconds - but folk die too !
To keep the UK population to a sustainable level, we could outlaw/tax bigger families (China stylee) - no thanks For increased life expectancy we could enforce the Logan's Run system - no thanks
So there is not much we can do to make an impact, other than stem the flow - even if it's just a 5 year breather.
Non-EU migration is a fully controllable and visa based system for which the UK Government is accountable. Yes, I am sure there are abuses, but these folk do not have the free movement that EU citizens have.
As for the "area of great financial benefit to the UK" - it's not about the money, money, money. For me it's about the quality of life for the 66 million that live here now.
What you say about the rapid increase in population in some areas is true but why haven't our government been using the additional tax receipts to expand the services that are needed. In fact in the last seven years they have been reducing services.
When considering the empty rhetoric of Davis and May, I can't help but be reminded of the following quote from General Melchett in Blackadder goes Forth:
"If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will pull us through."
Can I just say that when I grow up, I want to be able to debate like @NornIrishAddick. Masterclass, sir, absolute masterclass.
Mind you as a one-off gag @Cordoban Addick 's dubbing of @Valiantphil as the NightWatchman of the Brexit batting team is a gem to savour. And repeat until it sticks :-)
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
The Guardian today has a link from its Live page to the attached report which (admittedly with my poor understanding of any mathematical modelling that uses letters instead of numbers) appears to be fairly frightening: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pirs.12334/full. The worst part is, when you look at the Discussions and Conclusions section, that the researchers did not factor in all the likely impacts of being outside the Single Market and Customs Union.
I don't pretend to understand the methodology but, if robust, the conclusions have to be a worry.
You keep banging on about this new migrant every 5 minutes as the root cause of overstretched services. It simply isn't the case, if it were then the baby born every 100 seconds would be destroying our essential services.
Exactly. So the birth rate, increased life expectancy and non-eu immigration are causing a much higher impact to the population so why focus on an area of great financial benefit to the UK?
If we had an infrastructure designed to deal with 58m population which expands/contracts with the expected birth/death rate, then no problem. However, when you suddenly add 6 million people in 15 years then demand is likely to outstrip supply.
There may be a baby born every 100 seconds - but folk die too !
To keep the UK population to a sustainable level, we could outlaw/tax bigger families (China stylee) - no thanks For increased life expectancy we could enforce the Logan's Run system - no thanks
So there is not much we can do to make an impact, other than stem the flow - even if it's just a 5 year breather.
Non-EU migration is a fully controllable and visa based system for which the UK Government is accountable. Yes, I am sure there are abuses, but these folk do not have the free movement that EU citizens have.
As for the "area of great financial benefit to the UK" - it's not about the money, money, money. For me it's about the quality of life for the 66 million that live here now.
@Valiantphil, I admire your steadfast ability to just keep repeating the same thing with no additional evidence to support what you are saying. It is almost like you have been put into bat (nightwatchman?) by the Brexiteers on here, well done for keeping going.
The two most expensive periods of a persons life are when they are young and when they are old. Young because of the cost of medicine, birth and schooling and old because of the cost of care. The vast majority of migrants have finished schooling and are not near retirement age, they therefore cost the least and are in no way like the demographics of the people that are already here.
So we take the brightest and the best without paying for their education and early health costs. They are the brightest and the best because they have actually got off the backsides and moved to improve their lives. This will obviously have a negative effect on the countries they are leaving.
Most migrants then retire back to their country of origin saving us the costs of old age, but they continue to buy products that they got used to in whatever country they moved to.
What you say about the rapid increase in population in some areas is true but why haven't our government been using the additional tax receipts to expand the services that are needed. In fact in the last seven years they have been reducing services.
What you say about the average age may be true, but I don't know if there is any hard evidence of this. Maybe there is. The key point is: That maybe the case today but UK has no way of guaranteeing that the next migrant to arrive meets the demographic you describe, and worse is that should an EU country be deemed insufficient in its care of young or old - then what's stopping them coming to UK. The answer is nothing. We have no guarantee that a migrant will fit into any kind of category, intelligent, healthy, hard working or otherwise. This is what controlling immigration is all about for me. Anyone from a population of tens of millions is free to come anytime and settle anywhere. It can't go on.
The Gov't has had plenty of chances to take action as you say, but without the Tardis we can't change things.
I'm thinking of changing my handle to night watchman or joining the England cricket team in Oz - but I won't be needed there !
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
The Guardian today has a link from its Live page to the attached report which (admittedly with my poor understanding of any mathematical modelling that uses letters instead of numbers) appears to be fairly frightening: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pirs.12334/full. The worst part is, when you look at the Discussions and Conclusions section, that the researchers did not factor in all the likely impacts of being outside the Single Market and Customs Union.
I don't pretend to understand the methodology but, if robust, the conclusions have to be a worry.
Wowsers. Even though I'm qualified in a relevant field that is certainly some light bedtime reading. Will have to give it a good read tonight. On the basis of the summary though, the grim reality of Brexit is becoming crystal clear.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Or do what the Leavers did and spend the next 40 years working to undermine the Referendum result until they successfully reverse it.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
Why do you need persuading? You have your view, others have theirs. People's views on this matter are firmly established and it would be more or less impossible for one to flip another.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
Or do what the Leavers did and spend the next 40 years working to undermine the Referendum result until they successfully reverse it.
Personally I feel that the real damage was done by Gordon Brown when he refused to offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, despite there being overwhelming public support for it. Up until then, most MP's and indeed the vast majority of the public were happy with the relationship we had with the EU. Whilst there may have been some dissenting voices, it wasn't until after the UK signed the treaty that the anti-EU rhetoric really started to ramp up.
Stonemuse, dippenhall, chippy, valiantphil, and all the others who feel brexit isn't terrible are most welcome on this thread. All provide food for thought, all help sharpen my thinking, but so far none of them have persuaded me that there is anything good to come out of all this. As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all. How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Genuine question but are you aware of the problems that arise from building on peat bogs?
A very short sighted answer for a long standing problem.
Also, have you factored in the environmental and ecological impact of destroying said bogs?
Something needs to be done but this, for me, is both a pointless and a ridiculous suggestion.
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
I accept that this is your view, but to bring the infrastructure and services up to the required standard (for today) will take several years. During which time, we have no idea what our population may have risen to, so we could be building infrastructure on all this spare space and peat bogs that is not fit for purpose on the day of completion.
Sad to see you say that how we want our environment to look and deliver for us in the future is pointless and hypothetical. For me, it is very much about the kind of UK we are going to leave to our grandchildren - full to the rafters with folk falling through the social safety nets and living in overcrowded sub-standard housing, or living in a UK that provides for the needs of its population, whether that be a medical appointment or a stroll on the peat bog with the dog.
As I have said before - NHS service times, Housing shortage, transport congestion, lack of school places (for me) all point towards too many people using up the availability. Blaming the past on Tories, Gordon, Tony or whoever, is not going to help us deal with the problem we face NOW.
In a post-referendum study of why people voted (for either option), Economy (21%) was top of the "most important factors when deciding how to vote", immigration was next with (20%), sovereignty was third (17%). So it would seem that Remain voters put the economy first, and the Leave vote was mainly made up of the other two factors.
This is why we have to turn off the tap before we fix the leak in the bath so the repair can set and dry - that is, reduce immigration while we bring our services up to standard for the existing population.
Then we can proceed from there, according to our predicted needs for a controlled population number.
7% of the UK is built on and that sustains about 66 million souls. Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
...and what upper %age do you feel is acceptable ? What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
Actually to be more accurate only 0.1% of the UK is densely built upon. Source:
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
Genuine question but are you aware of the problems that arise from building on peat bogs?
A very short sighted answer for a long standing problem.
Also, have you factored in the environmental impact of destroying said bogs?
Something needs to be done but this, for me, is both a pointless and a ridiculous suggestion.
It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, but I suspect you knew that already! It was merely illustrative of the ridiculous claim, that we hear far too often, that the UK is only a small island and we are full up.
I was just making a change from the often used golf club to housing in Surrey ratio...
Comments
Anyhow that fact that she’s being paid about £170k a year to say ‘strong and stable’ and other sound bites is very pleasing. Gives me a real sense of purpose and faith that the system works
1) No deal - fairly traumatic for UK plc
2) Canada - not much better
3) Norway + CU - Brexit in name only
4) Abort the process
Option 1 has virtually disappeared. Canada +++ doesn't exist so 2018 is a choice between option 2 and 3.
Option 4 comes into play should option 3 beat option 2. Commentators are already stating what's the point of Brexit?!
For now we have a choice between Canada and Norway. If people thought phase one was brutal on the UK, then they should wait to see phase two! The Brexiloons will continue with their walk away mantra sponsored by the Mail. The rest of us can simply keep calm and observe... with the assistance of commentators such as Fintan O'Toole.
1. As I have said before, I am not in favour of telling folk where in the UK they can settle. One hopes that migrants settle where the work and housing are available, but I wonder if this is true in practice.
I haven't seen a breakdown of the age/marital status etc, but it's a big stretch to say that EU migrants are less likely to have the sort of impact as I described on schools/public services/housing.
An average person from the EU is the same as an average person already in the UK - and we can each measure what demand we make as individuals on the above items. I don't think it makes a difference where folk originated.
The educational standard / "quality" of migrant is not an issue for me, and I agree that many future experts (like prof Heinz Woolf) will emerge from this part of the population.
2. Yes, there are a few that hold this view, but again I don't think it is representative of a big section of Brits, nor a core reason why folk voted Brexit.
3. Just like the UK - any country that wants to buy our stuff will be encouraged to do so, and I don't think those former Commonwealth nations will be holding any sort of grudge about being "abandoned" by UK many years ago. I was in Sth Africa recently and those guys are itching to revive the old days of Cape fruit and veg being sold into the UK post Brexit.
4. Yes, maybe you are right. The Trump speech tonight was a bit scary.
Nothing wrong with a dangerous lefty, just thank heaven we live in a country with freedom of speech.
There may be a baby born every 100 seconds - but folk die too !
To keep the UK population to a sustainable level, we could outlaw/tax bigger families (China stylee) - no thanks
For increased life expectancy we could enforce the Logan's Run system - no thanks
So there is not much we can do to make an impact, other than stem the flow - even if it's just a 5 year breather.
Non-EU migration is a fully controllable and visa based system for which the UK Government is accountable.
Yes, I am sure there are abuses, but these folk do not have the free movement that EU citizens have.
As for the "area of great financial benefit to the UK" - it's not about the money, money, money. For me it's about the quality of life for the 66 million that live here now.
The age profile (most migrants are in their 20s or 30s), the general lack of children and/or parents brought with them, and the fact that most are in work, would logically suggest that they will be less of a drain on resources than the wider population.
Depending on the migrants' background, obviously, things can change over time, as people settle, but I very much doubt that, with the exception of the Roma (who are, frankly, persecuted in many parts if Europe - and who, along with the homosexuals, were not offered a state of their own following their experience of the Holocaust), there is likely to be significant numbers of extended family members seeking to enter the country as family members rather than economic migrants in their own right (second or third generation chain migration, where relatives may help find a job and accommodation, but really do not intend migrants to live with them).
2. I don't think that Fintan O'Toole suggested, other than a nostalgic feeling, that an imperial nationalism is widely and sincerely held among the majority in the UK (though it appears more popular among those that see themselves as opinion formers in the media and politics than the wider population - and it is these people that helped create the "sore tooth"), rather that it is one variety of English nationalism. We could debate forever the degree to which those things that might be ascribed to imperial nationalism are real or ironic.... Or possibly not.
If influential people and opinion formers (because they own media channels and shape the debate) hold to an imperial nationalist line, even if it represents a tiny percentage of the population, it will be important. I will say that the number of times I have read comments (often below online articles in The Guardian) where suggestions have been made that the UK should threaten the EU with military force, or to withdraw defence cooperation within NATO, if the EU was not willing to give the UK what it wanted, would make me believe that imperial nationalism may be more prevalent than we would have expected.
As an aside, I did like the fact that he shares my view that the historical triumph of English nationalism has been the construction of a Britishness largely in its own image.
3. I've been buying South African fruit for years (since the end of Apartheid - I am right on like that). Membership if the EU has not prevented this trade. Indeed, the continued importation of South African fruit in the days of Apartheid was the cause of prolonged industrial action in Ireland (look up the Dunnes Stores workers dispute).
I do agree that, provided it is in their interests, all countries will trade with each other. And yes, in the Commonwealth a number of countries are looking forward to the opportunities provided by Brexit, because they see the renegotiation of WTO schedules as an opportunity to increase their access to the current EU market. We have already seen the first shots across the bow, in conjunction with Argentina and the USA, in this regard. But it's not because they are Commonwealth countries, or in any way pro-UK, their reaction to the outline agreement between the UK and EU27 on splitting the EU's WTO quotas is, if anything, anti-UK (certainly anti-UK producer).
The Commonwealth countries will not, as you say, be holding a grudge, but equally they won't be doing any favours. They will, quite rightly, prioritise their own interests and seek to maximise trading benefits, including, potentially, dealing with the EU first in trade negotiations.
It is Liam Fox and his ilk that have made comments that suggests that at least some at the heart of Brexit believe the Commonwealth will, like the 7th Cavalry in the old Westerns, ride to the rescue for UK trade. It may happen, and I'm very definitely not saying that it won't happen, but I'm fairly sure that neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Justin Trudeau are John Wayne.
The two most expensive periods of a persons life are when they are young and when they are old. Young because of the cost of medicine, birth and schooling and old because of the cost of care. The vast majority of migrants have finished schooling and are not near retirement age, they therefore cost the least and are in no way like the demographics of the people that are already here.
So we take the brightest and the best without paying for their education and early health costs. They are the brightest and the best because they have actually got off the backsides and moved to improve their lives. This will obviously have a negative effect on the countries they are leaving.
Most migrants then retire back to their country of origin saving us the costs of old age, but they continue to buy products that they got used to in whatever country they moved to.
What you say about the rapid increase in population in some areas is true but why haven't our government been using the additional tax receipts to expand the services that are needed. In fact in the last seven years they have been reducing services.
"If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will pull us through."
Mind you as a one-off gag @Cordoban Addick 's dubbing of @Valiantphil as the NightWatchman of the Brexit batting team is a gem to savour. And repeat until it sticks :-)
As recently as yesterday in Parliament May talked about uniting the country after the UK leaves the EU. At the moment the idea of post brexit national unity is only about 2% of the debate, but as far as I can tell unity after brexit will be because the 48% will be expected to love the outcome for no particular reason at all.
How does anybody on any side of this debate think our divided society can possibly come together?
I don't pretend to understand the methodology but, if robust, the conclusions have to be a worry.
The key point is:
That maybe the case today but UK has no way of guaranteeing that the next migrant to arrive meets the demographic you describe, and worse is that should an EU country be deemed insufficient in its care of young or old - then what's stopping them coming to UK.
The answer is nothing.
We have no guarantee that a migrant will fit into any kind of category, intelligent, healthy, hard working or otherwise. This is what controlling immigration is all about for me.
Anyone from a population of tens of millions is free to come anytime and settle anywhere. It can't go on.
The Gov't has had plenty of chances to take action as you say, but without the Tardis we can't change things.
I'm thinking of changing my handle to night watchman or joining the England cricket team in Oz - but I won't be needed there !
Just as the reality is more complex than those bald numbers, EU migration is more complex than bald numbers too.
One of the main things I've seen this thread is useful for, is to highlight a lot of the myths around what is the EU's fault and what is our own fault. Contrary to popular belief, not all the problems we have in this country are related to immigration or EU bureaucracy, and it's important that people realise that. I personally couldn't care less about the immigration situation. It's not a crisis and it's unlikely to be even after Brexit, because as many have pointed out, there will still be immigration, from all over the world, including the EU, there just may be a few more hurdles to jump through. But those that are keen to come and live and work in this country will do whatever it takes.
Brexit is a step into the unknown, and it's likely that there will be some suffering, but we will have to adapt. There are many countries out there in the world who are doing pretty well who are not part of the EU, and there's no reason we cannot be one of those countries, but change is going to be required. Our government put two options on the table, leave or remain. Voters made a choice, now it's up to the government, not the individual voter, to find a solution to the problems we have.
I voted to leave for business reasons. I import and export goods to and from countries that are mostly outside of the EU. The EU wheels turn very slowly and hoping for trade deals with China, India, South American and African countries, any time soon, is folly. I took a gamble in that if the UK is outside of the EU, they will have to work quickly to get as many deals with other nations as possible, to offset any loss that may arise as a result of a less lucrative deal with EU countries. This could be a boost to my business. Time will tell, but I'm happy with my decision and am willing to accept short term pain for (hopefully) long term gain. Within the EU my business was never going to progress, outside I have a chance.
One thing people are going to have to accept, is that a deal with the EU is going to come at a cost. Just like every trade deal in the world comes at a cost. This might be signing up regulatory framework or accepting certain conditions, we aren't going to have it all our way. There is a very long way to go in these negotiations, and there will be lots of twists and turns, and we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it, that was never, ever going to happen. But we can get a workable deal, even if it's not going to be as beneficial as the one we have now. Both sides NEED a deal, and all this bluster we hear from our government and EU officials is ridiculous. I wish they would all just shut up and get on with it.
Whether there will be unity after Brexit remains to be seen. It's likely that both leavers and remainers will have some bitter pills to swallow. But ultimately what are people going to do, cry into their milk for the remainder of their days or try to look forward and make the best of what is to come?
What shall we do when we get to your acceptable %age ?
rss.org.uk/RSS/Get_involved/Statistic_of_the_year/RSS/Get_involved/Statistic_of_the_Year_.aspx?hkey=e5008987-fab9-4385-9110-4287e487b8d6
"...The same research estimated that only 5.4% of the UK land area has been built upon, or in other words, is urban fabric, while 9.4% consists of peat bogs."
So to answer your rather pointless and hypothetical question, we could use some of the land that is currently peat bogs!
Can we not just get past this ridiculous notion that there's no room in the UK and that this is a legitimate reason to leave the EU..?
There is plenty of room. What there is not is appropriate investment by any government, but particularly Tory ones, in infrastructure, transport, training and our public services. Because to do so leaves them open to charges of "overspending", "bankrupting the country!", "building a bloated public sector!", etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.
A very short sighted answer for a long standing problem.
Also, have you factored in the environmental and ecological impact of destroying said bogs?
Something needs to be done but this, for me, is both a pointless and a ridiculous suggestion.
Sad to see you say that how we want our environment to look and deliver for us in the future is pointless and hypothetical. For me, it is very much about the kind of UK we are going to leave to our grandchildren - full to the rafters with folk falling through the social safety nets and living in overcrowded sub-standard housing, or living in a UK that provides for the needs of its population, whether that be a medical appointment or a stroll on the peat bog with the dog.
As I have said before - NHS service times, Housing shortage, transport congestion, lack of school places (for me) all point towards too many people using up the availability. Blaming the past on Tories, Gordon, Tony or whoever, is not going to help us deal with the problem we face NOW.
In a post-referendum study of why people voted (for either option), Economy (21%) was top of the "most important factors when deciding how to vote", immigration was next with (20%), sovereignty was third (17%).
So it would seem that Remain voters put the economy first, and the Leave vote was mainly made up of the other two factors.
This is why we have to turn off the tap before we fix the leak in the bath so the repair can set and dry
- that is, reduce immigration while we bring our services up to standard for the existing population.
Then we can proceed from there, according to our predicted needs for a controlled population number.
I was just making a change from the often used golf club to housing in Surrey ratio...