As @Bournemouth Addick asked, why do you have to be so abrasive on the issue? - in this case the incarcerated Mrs Ratcliffe.
You seriously think I somehow support the Iranian regime and its appalling behaviour? If so, have a word with yourself. The reason I don't mention it on this thread is that i raised Johnson and Gove's behaviour in the context of Brexit, the topic of this thread.
It is ridiculous to argue on here whether Mrs Ratcliffe's blood has physically been spilled or not. You doubtless heard her husband today on the matter. He actually doesn't want Johnson sacked at this time, and if that's his belief, that's to be respected. We can wait for the Olympic Stadium inquiry to be published; with any luck she will be home by then, and that will do for him.
I should make clear that I am definitely opposed to Brexit in any event. Given that it is happening, I believe that the most sensible option is seeking to be in the EEA as an EFTA member. Unfortunately, the Government policy appears to have been decided as a tribute to Jacques Tati's films.
My comments concerning the security implications are largely based on a very strong belief that I would have an allergic reaction to being blown up (there's a definite potential to bring me out in lumps).
One death caused or facilitated by the outworkings of Brexit is, IMHO, far too many - though, for mist of us, more likely to happen because of the impact on NHS services than anything else.
What about "one death caused or facilitated by the outworkings of" remaining?
This is all getting a bit too sinister now if you ask me...
Well, I agree, any single death that would be caused by remaining would be too many.
I'm not sure that deciding to stay in the EU would have caused significant numbers of EU medical professionals to leave the UK, nor how not introducing customs infrastructure in Northern Ireland would further embolden idiot terrorists in Northern Ireland.
But we are where we are (in my case, hating fat finger syndrome/predictive text on my phone as well as Brexit).
We have a few on here who seem to think that anyone concerned about the impact of Brexit on the (fragile) peace in NI are only worthy of taking the piss. I think this serves as a reminder to us all that not everyone is happy with the status quo and will be looking to maximise on any division it results in.
Who's took the piss? I've given ideas for solutions about 6 times now (which was basically leaving the physical border as it is), and I also shared a piece later on that said the government is considering doing just that. Although it was largely ignored on here
Quite simply, the UK Government position regarding the border in Ireland is delusional.
If it wants to be outside the Customs Union and the Single Market, there will have to be a customs border, even temporarily (but temporary solutions have a terrible tendency to become permanent)..
The EU offer of trading arrangements is effectively the Norway option (EFTA and EEA) or a Free Trade Agreement (like Canada). Of the two, the only one that has any chance of being implemented within the time remaining (including the transition period envisaged by T May), is EEA. However, Norway has to have customs controls on its land border with the EU (admittedly shared, so some on the Swedish side and some in Norway) and smuggling is a major problem.
It does not appear that the UK is willing to accept the Norway model. It is seeking a bespoke deal, with much greater access to the Single Market than CETA, for one, allows, but the EU is effectively saying that the UK cannot have this kind of semi-detached Single Market membership. Even if the EU was willing to agree such an arrangement, the current degree of integration would mean that agreeing it, or any other FTA would be hugely complex and time-consuming. There is no way that any comprehensive Free Trade Agreement would be in place within the time period specified by the UK Government (and, in fairness, the EU Parliament), including transition. This would mean that there would be a border without a deal in place/
If customs controls are not implemented at a country's borders, under WTO rules, that country is obliged to provide exactly the same access for everyone. The EU will not (because it is a rules based organisation that established common standards, etc.) open up its borders to allow untrammelled access to all and sundry, just to please David Davis. The EU is very keen to prevent sub-standard goods being imported into the Single Market, which is the reason why HMRC is having to pay a fine, for allowing vast quantities of Chinese goods enter the EU without adequate inspection.
Of course, it could be that the UK Government's solution is a cunning ploy to implement Professor Minford's unilateral free trade on the sly (but the flaw in this argument, like that of unilateral nuclear disarmament, is that once you have implemented the policy, there is no incentive for your partners to reciprocate - in effect, for much of the UK economy, it would be like the Government subsidising imports at their expense).
We have a few on here who seem to think that anyone concerned about the impact of Brexit on the (fragile) peace in NI are only worthy of taking the piss. I think this serves as a reminder to us all that not everyone is happy with the status quo and will be looking to maximise on any division it results in.
Who's took the piss? I've given ideas for solutions about 6 times now (which was basically leaving the physical border as it is), and I also shared a piece later on that said the government is considering doing just that. Although it was largely ignored on here
Posting pictures if panic buttons and Private Frazer saying "We're all doomed" counts as taking the pee in my book. But not apparently as counting towards being called a doom and gloom merchant...
As @Bournemouth Addick asked, why do you have to be so abrasive on the issue? - in this case the incarcerated Mrs Ratcliffe.
You seriously think I somehow support the Iranian regime and its appalling behaviour? If so, have a word with yourself. The reason I don't mention it on this thread is that i raised Johnson and Gove's behaviour in the context of Brexit, the topic of this thread.
It is ridiculous to argue on here whether Mrs Ratcliffe's blood has physically been spilled or not. You doubtless heard her husband today on the matter. He actually doesn't want Johnson sacked at this time, and if that's his belief, that's to be respected. We can wait for the Olympic Stadium inquiry to be published; with any luck she will be home by then, and that will do for him.
ART really undermined his argument with that comment. I also don't get invoking the ghost of Blair when we are talking about a situation today involving a person in danger right now, that can be helped by the politicians mentioned, and they are doing the opposite. Sometimes you just have to accept that the people involved are arseholes and that voting for them is not a good idea.
We have a few on here who seem to think that anyone concerned about the impact of Brexit on the (fragile) peace in NI are only worthy of taking the piss. I think this serves as a reminder to us all that not everyone is happy with the status quo and will be looking to maximise on any division it results in.
So people who have bombed each other for decades are bombing each other today.
So for the sake of dramatic effect on Remembrance Sunday, we can extend today's event into the future when they might - for some (as yet unspecified) reason related to a Brexit which hasnt happened yet - keep bombing each other more.
And there again they might have kept bombing each other regardless of Brexit.
But lets make a drama out of it just in case the sky falls in sometime in the future.....
It might be a better move towards understanding, and even empathy if you rephrased:
'So people who have bombed each other for decades' and changed it to 'So people who have bombed each other for reasons'.
The reasons are the key factor. In the face of other terror threats there is a concept of 'de-radicalisation' which is an attempt to engage with the reasons why people do terrible things. Given the significance of the Good Friday Agreement some of the reasons for conflict, like the border, were softened.
if there is a notion that 'these people have been at it for decades so what's new?', then that notion ignores that there has been relatively new initiatives in the peace process which have helped, and are now at risk.
The Good Friday agreement has diluted the notion that people have been bombing each-other for decades and will therefore continue, and the terror has been reduced massively. I disagree with you if you mean that being worried about an increase in terror make you a drama queen, because it has been demonstrated that with effort terror can be decreased.
Good points, Seth. Can I ask why the (massive) decommissioning of weapons, greatly increased intelligence and shared initiatives, the much more positive cross party/and seemingly sectarian (which IMO having considerable experience there,will never be fully resolved, hence the continued threat of violence underpinning much of life and organised crime) co-operation, the wonderful efforts towards positive action powered by the will of the people will be, as you say, at risk? How will they be at risk? Is this real or imagined?
The risk will be the establishment of a hard border because of brexit.
I have commented before that there are as far as I can see it only two choices, no border as there is now beyond a few quaint road signs and markings, and a border with any kind of control which would be a hard border.
Right now I can travel to and fro from Lee to Greenwich, or Greenwich to Central London, or London to Bristol, or Bristol to Cardiff, or Cardiff to Lancaster, or Lancaster to Glasgow, or Glasgow to Belfast, or Belfast to Dublin without a heed. If I were taking my garden grown potatoes with me to sell in any of those places I can do it without a hindrance.
If I had to have checks, and costs, and rules and regulations and paperwork as I take myself and my spuds through Blackheath to Greenwich it would become (quote W1A) a bummer.
For many reasons such restrictions on the island of Ireland would be a bummer to the power of 10, and enough to stir up trouble by the usual suspects especially because of the historic reasons being brought back to create enmity. Have you seen the pictures of the walls in Belfast, they are bummer enough?
Perhaps it might be even worth looking at this brexit border thing another way and asking a different question, would a hard border help the peace process?
FWIW, I don't think any kind of border has to be seen as a hard border. Just because you can only see two options doesn't mean that compromises cant be struck.
I also really don't think a hard border will materialise, and so I am not predicting the death and mayhem the few on here seem to enjoy predicting. Maybe I'm naive, maybe not. Time will tell.
(FYI I have spent a considerable time in and around the Divis Road flats before the demolition process, so yes I have seen plenty of pictures, and recently went back to gaze in awe at the tourist industry capitalising on them.)
To the main point. Perhaps we should cross bridges when we come to them, because a lot of the doom predictions are very much hypothetical, yet 6 posters on CL seem obsessed with what might be, and are full of hyperbolic outrage at every possible future disaster.
I assume you are including Phil in that with his hoards of foreigners pouring in to make the queue at Tesco longer?
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
Well, a report in The Economist many years ago suggested (when, I think the population was circa 50mn) that the ideal UK population was around 35mn. That was on the basis that a population at that level would provide sufficient resources/economies of scale to do well economically, while at the same time providing sufficient space, adequate transport links,adequate housing and a decent quality of life. So, if the magazine was correct, we're heading towards double that figure. Now, of the actual number of 64mn, around 5.3mn are non-British of which 2.9mn are from the EU. (There are also maybe 1.2mn UK nationals elsewhere in the EU.) That leads onto birth rates. Recent ONS data show that for 2016, 28.2% (the highest ever) of births in the UK were to women who were not born here. By way of comparison, in 1990, that percentage was 11.6%. The ONS helpfully gives reasons for this record level. The main one being: "women born in certain countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and African countries tend to have above-average fertility".
You'll note that none of these countries are in the EU though. And we could have controlled (or stopped) immigration from all of them if we had so wished.
You started it last week by asking a ludicrous question about the irish border to my joke response about being on page 2. You may love love the irish.... I have their blood in me and apart from these pages never tell anyone.
I don’t get it.
You are obviously not a stupid man. You are entitled to call yourself doctor. That takes intelligence.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t seem to understand that your overtly and blatant anti Irish posts are insulting to quite a few posters on this forum. You could make an argument in saying your posts are bordering on racism. You don’t have to be talking about people with brown faces for a comment to be racist.
Why would someone go out of their way to insult fellow lifers based on their ethnicity ?
You are obviously totally oblivious to the fact that it’s insulting or you want to insult people.
In the last week i have been called a little englander rascist and now an ignorant brexit twat. Look back over the last few pages and quote me where i have done simular.
Why do people ask me about the border when i hate my irish ancestry. As i said last week, if you don't like the answer, don't ask me the question.
What amazes me is that the remainers here call brexiters disgusting things, yet when a comment is made back, the rat pack don't like it.
Why arnt you asking those on your side why they are doing it. Bit two faced isn't it.
But why insult the Irish ?
Why not... They hate us so cant i hate them... Scots hate us welsh do... But its a crime to reciprocate.... And btw i have every reason to..... Tell me the last time an english fan donned the opposite shirt in a sports match.....
A bloke with his Welsh friends in the pub I was in this afternoon had an Australia top on.
Next myth please...
You knew what i meant
You asked someone to tell you "the last time an english fan donned the opposite shirt in a sports match", and I did. Sorry if it spoiled your theory, that's what facts do. Don't ask the question if you are not prepared for the answer to contradict your belief.
We have a few on here who seem to think that anyone concerned about the impact of Brexit on the (fragile) peace in NI are only worthy of taking the piss. I think this serves as a reminder to us all that not everyone is happy with the status quo and will be looking to maximise on any division it results in.
So people who have bombed each other for decades are bombing each other today.
So for the sake of dramatic effect on Remembrance Sunday, we can extend today's event into the future when they might - for some (as yet unspecified) reason related to a Brexit which hasnt happened yet - keep bombing each other more.
And there again they might have kept bombing each other regardless of Brexit.
But lets make a drama out of it just in case the sky falls in sometime in the future.....
It might be a better move towards understanding, and even empathy if you rephrased:
'So people who have bombed each other for decades' and changed it to 'So people who have bombed each other for reasons'.
The reasons are the key factor. In the face of other terror threats there is a concept of 'de-radicalisation' which is an attempt to engage with the reasons why people do terrible things. Given the significance of the Good Friday Agreement some of the reasons for conflict, like the border, were softened.
if there is a notion that 'these people have been at it for decades so what's new?', then that notion ignores that there has been relatively new initiatives in the peace process which have helped, and are now at risk.
The Good Friday agreement has diluted the notion that people have been bombing each-other for decades and will therefore continue, and the terror has been reduced massively. I disagree with you if you mean that being worried about an increase in terror make you a drama queen, because it has been demonstrated that with effort terror can be decreased.
Good points, Seth. Can I ask why the (massive) decommissioning of weapons, greatly increased intelligence and shared initiatives, the much more positive cross party/and seemingly sectarian (which IMO having considerable experience there,will never be fully resolved, hence the continued threat of violence underpinning much of life and organised crime) co-operation, the wonderful efforts towards positive action powered by the will of the people will be, as you say, at risk? How will they be at risk? Is this real or imagined?
The risk will be the establishment of a hard border because of brexit.
I have commented before that there are as far as I can see it only two choices, no border as there is now beyond a few quaint road signs and markings, and a border with any kind of control which would be a hard border.
Right now I can travel to and fro from Lee to Greenwich, or Greenwich to Central London, or London to Bristol, or Bristol to Cardiff, or Cardiff to Lancaster, or Lancaster to Glasgow, or Glasgow to Belfast, or Belfast to Dublin without a heed. If I were taking my garden grown potatoes with me to sell in any of those places I can do it without a hindrance.
If I had to have checks, and costs, and rules and regulations and paperwork as I take myself and my spuds through Blackheath to Greenwich it would become (quote W1A) a bummer.
For many reasons such restrictions on the island of Ireland would be a bummer to the power of 10, and enough to stir up trouble by the usual suspects especially because of the historic reasons being brought back to create enmity. Have you seen the pictures of the walls in Belfast, they are bummer enough?
Perhaps it might be even worth looking at this brexit border thing another way and asking a different question, would a hard border help the peace process?
FWIW, I don't think any kind of border has to be seen as a hard border. Just because you can only see two options doesn't mean that compromises cant be struck.
I also really don't think a hard border will materialise, and so I am not predicting the death and mayhem the few on here seem to enjoy predicting. Maybe I'm naive, maybe not. Time will tell.
(FYI I have spent a considerable time in and around the Divis Road flats before the demolition process, so yes I have seen plenty of pictures, and recently went back to gaze in awe at the tourist industry capitalising on them.)
To the main point. Perhaps we should cross bridges when we come to them, because a lot of the doom predictions are very much hypothetical, yet 6 posters on CL seem obsessed with what might be, and are full of hyperbolic outrage at every possible future
I assume you are including Phil in that with his hoards of foreigners pouring in to make the queue at Tesco longer?
Nothing hypothetical about my population issue. The queue at Tesco is getting longer every day that we allow unrestricted access to the UK from EU.
We have a few on here who seem to think that anyone concerned about the impact of Brexit on the (fragile) peace in NI are only worthy of taking the piss. I think this serves as a reminder to us all that not everyone is happy with the status quo and will be looking to maximise on any division it results in.
Who's took the piss? I've given ideas for solutions about 6 times now (which was basically leaving the physical border as it is), and I also shared a piece later on that said the government is considering doing just that. Although it was largely ignored on here
Posting pictures if panic buttons and Private Frazer saying "We're all doomed" counts as taking the pee in my book. But not apparently as counting towards being called a doom and gloom merchant...
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
If there are no jobs and no benefit, why would they come?
Who knows/cares ? Dave promised net immigration in the tens of thousands and ended up looking foolish when he failed to deliver on the promise.
If you don't know or care, why keep posting about it? I think the answer you are looking for is " I had not thought about that, perhaps I have been making assumptions without thinking it through."
I think Dave has managed to make himself look about 100 times more foolish with a far more ill thought out idea than that one...
The fact is that dozens of people every year tell me that would like to "do what I have done" and come and live on the Algarve. The answer (for now) is "you can". There is nothing stopping them, but they don't do it. Why? Because like millions of others, despite what they say, they are happy where they are. Secure in their job, secure in their neighbourhood, they have their family and friends around them. The same applies to the vast majority of Romanians, Hungarians and Slovaks. They are not, contrary to Farage's bluster, and red top lies, waiting on the border with their suitcase just gagging to live six to a room in Stoke Newington so they can wash up in a hotel on Green Lanes. Remember the bullshit when Romanians were given the chance to move around Europe? Farage claimed there would be thousands breaking down the doors at immigration, and in fact just one bloke turned up at Luton...
There are some who will chance their arm - same as we did - but if there's no work and no dole, they go home. I saw it happen to many of my friends here during the recession.
If they are working, then there are jobs that need doing. If they are low paid, that is the decision of the employer.
The "top number" is when the UK does not have jobs for them. If the government chooses not to tax those employers saving money on wages, by taxing them more highly on their increased profits to pay for the infrastructure for the increased population , that is down to you to vote for a government that will.
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
Well, a report in The Economist many years ago suggested (when, I think the population was circa 50mn) that the ideal UK population was around 35mn. That was on the basis that a population at that level would provide sufficient resources/economies of scale to do well economically, while at the same time providing sufficient space, adequate transport links,adequate housing and a decent quality of life. So, if the magazine was correct, we're heading towards double that figure. Now, of the actual number of 64mn, around 5.3mn are non-British of which 2.9mn are from the EU. (There are also maybe 1.2mn UK nationals elsewhere in the EU.) That leads onto birth rates. Recent ONS data show that for 2016, 28.2% (the highest ever) of births in the UK were to women who were not born here. By way of comparison, in 1990, that percentage was 11.6%. The ONS helpfully gives reasons for this record level. The main one being: "women born in certain countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and African countries tend to have above-average fertility".
You'll note that none of these countries are in the EU though. And we could have controlled (or stopped) immigration from all of them if we had so wished.
Interesting post.
We have controlled non Eu immigration but not as much as some would have liked. When I was looking at the ons stats I think it's also the case from Eurostat source (the eu equivalent of ons) that by some date 2040 if I recall we will have the largest population in the eu bigger than France or Germany. Now for a country that can't organise a new runway at Heathrow for decades that requires some substantial step up in organisation. Personally I would prefer some tighter controls across the board. Hence my leave vote.
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
Well, a report in The Economist many years ago suggested (when, I think the population was circa 50mn) that the ideal UK population was around 35mn. That was on the basis that a population at that level would provide sufficient resources/economies of scale to do well economically, while at the same time providing sufficient space, adequate transport links,adequate housing and a decent quality of life. So, if the magazine was correct, we're heading towards double that figure. Now, of the actual number of 64mn, around 5.3mn are non-British of which 2.9mn are from the EU. (There are also maybe 1.2mn UK nationals elsewhere in the EU.) That leads onto birth rates. Recent ONS data show that for 2016, 28.2% (the highest ever) of births in the UK were to women who were not born here. By way of comparison, in 1990, that percentage was 11.6%. The ONS helpfully gives reasons for this record level. The main one being: "women born in certain countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and African countries tend to have above-average fertility".
You'll note that none of these countries are in the EU though. And we could have controlled (or stopped) immigration from all of them if we had so wished.
Interesting post.
We have controlled non Eu immigration but not as much as some would have liked. When I was looking at the ons stats I think it's also the case from Eurostat source (the eu equivalent of ons) that by some date 2040 if I recall we will have the largest population in the eu bigger than France or Germany. Now for a country that can't organise a new runway at Heathrow for decades that requires some substantial step up in organisation. Personally I would prefer some tighter controls across the board. Hence my leave vote.
So because the UK government is shit, leave the EU? Interesting perspective.
A leave vote based on concern about sheer numbers is understandable. However I believe wrapped up in that vote is sme kind of vague hope that a brexit vote would make a difference. It looks to me that the brexit vote will make no difference at all in the area of population. I am prepared for somebody to persuade me it will.
A leave vote based on concern about sheer numbers is understandable. However I believe wrapped up in that vote is sme kind of vague hope that a brexit vote would make a difference. It looks to me that the brexit vote will make no difference at all in the area of population. I am prepared for somebody to persuade me it will.
So, on the basis that vaguely half the population are woman, without immigration, in theory, we need an average of 2.0 just to stand still on population figures.
It is also quite possible that rather than immigration and birth rates being the big issue with regards to population it's the fact that people are living longer that has been a major driver for the overall population increase. Again, according to the ONS, "Age-Standardised Mortality Rates" have shifted from 1511 per 100,000 men and 1046 per 100,000 woman in 2001 to 1156 and 863 in 2015. That's a pretty hefty change over a quite short period. We could be living in the very opposite of "No Country For Old Men".
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
If there are no jobs and no benefit, why would they come?
Who knows/cares ? Dave promised net immigration in the tens of thousands and ended up looking foolish when he failed to deliver on the promise.
If you don't know or care, why keep posting about it? I think the answer you are looking for is " I had not thought about that, perhaps I have been making assumptions without thinking it through."
I think Dave has managed to make himself look about 100 times more foolish with a far more ill thought out idea than that one...
The fact is that dozens of people every year tell me that would like to "do what I have done" and come and live on the Algarve. The answer (for now) is "you can". There is nothing stopping them, but they don't do it. Why? Because like millions of others, despite what they say, they are happy where they are. Secure in their job, secure in their neighbourhood, they have their family and friends around them. The same applies to the vast majority of Romanians, Hungarians and Slovaks. They are not, contrary to Farage's bluster, and red top lies, waiting on the border with their suitcase just gagging to live six to a room in Stoke Newington so they can wash up in a hotel on Green Lanes. Remember the bullshit when Romanians were given the chance to move around Europe? Farage claimed there would be thousands breaking down the doors at immigration, and in fact just one bloke turned up at Luton...
There are some who will chance their arm - same as we did - but if there's no work and no dole, they go home. I saw it happen to many of my friends here during the recession.
If they are working, then there are jobs that need doing. If they are low paid, that is the decision of the employer.
The "top number" is when the UK does not have jobs for them. If the government chooses not to tax those employers saving money on wages, by taxing them more highly on their increased profits to pay for the infrastructure for the increased population , that is down to you to vote for a government that will.
You asked "why do they keep coming" I answered "who knows or cares"
If you know why they keep coming, or how to stop the hundreds of thousands that are swelling the UK population every year - please tell. Then I can lobby to cancel Brexit and enact your solution instead.
Unemployment is currently around 4% - when you say "no jobs left for them" do you mean when unemployment at 0% ?
Unemployment at 0% would surely mean the worker has the upper hand and can demand higher wages - thus making a job in the U.K. more attractive and more reason to come here ?
You claim that EU immigrants are swelling the population. But it is a meaningless statement without knowing how many people are leaving the UK to go live in the EU. And because the Government doesn't seem to have a reliable measure of counting this figure as no checks are done on people emigrating to the continent, we cannot actually be certain how much of an impact, if any, the EU has had.
From my perspective, an interesting read (though Lacpatrick seem to be better able to deal with border issues than many of its competitors - mostly because a lot of its exports, unlike for those producing cheddar, will have a wide range of possible markets).
Mind you, it's not Strabane, it's Artigarvan (which is at least a mile out of town...)
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
If there are no jobs and no benefit, why would they come?
Who knows/cares ? Dave promised net immigration in the tens of thousands and ended up looking foolish when he failed to deliver on the promise.
If you don't know or care, why keep posting about it? I think the answer you are looking for is " I had not thought about that, perhaps I have been making assumptions without thinking it through."
I think Dave has managed to make himself look about 100 times more foolish with a far more ill thought out idea than that one...
The fact is that dozens of people every year tell me that would like to "do what I have done" and come and live on the Algarve. The answer (for now) is "you can". There is nothing stopping them, but they don't do it. Why? Because like millions of others, despite what they say, they are happy where they are. Secure in their job, secure in their neighbourhood, they have their family and friends around them. The same applies to the vast majority of Romanians, Hungarians and Slovaks. They are not, contrary to Farage's bluster, and red top lies, waiting on the border with their suitcase just gagging to live six to a room in Stoke Newington so they can wash up in a hotel on Green Lanes. Remember the bullshit when Romanians were given the chance to move around Europe? Farage claimed there would be thousands breaking down the doors at immigration, and in fact just one bloke turned up at Luton...
There are some who will chance their arm - same as we did - but if there's no work and no dole, they go home. I saw it happen to many of my friends here during the recession.
If they are working, then there are jobs that need doing. If they are low paid, that is the decision of the employer.
The "top number" is when the UK does not have jobs for them. If the government chooses not to tax those employers saving money on wages, by taxing them more highly on their increased profits to pay for the infrastructure for the increased population , that is down to you to vote for a government that will.
You asked "why do they keep coming" I answered "who knows or cares"
If you know why they keep coming, or how to stop the hundreds of thousands that are swelling the UK population every year - please tell. Then I can lobby to cancel Brexit and enact your solution instead.
Unemployment is currently around 4% - when you say "no jobs left for them" do you mean when unemployment at 0% ?
Unemployment at 0% would surely mean the worker has the upper hand and can demand higher wages - thus making a job in the U.K. more attractive and more reason to come here ?
1) If you know why they keep coming - because there are jobs that need doing, that they do.
2) how to stop the hundreds of thousands that are swelling the UK population every year - there is no need to. They are needed to work, see answer 1).
3) Unemployment is currently around 4% - when you say "no jobs left for them" do you mean when unemployment at 0% ?
Unemployment at 0% would surely mean the worker has the upper hand and can demand higher wages - thus making a job in the U.K. more attractive and more reason to come here? - Unemployment will never be at 0%, no matter how much governments massage the figures. When I say no jobs for them it ties in with my previous statement that if there are no jobs and no benefits why would they come? At the moment, there are jobs for them, so they continue to come and do those jobs, when there are no jobs, they will stop coming (or arrive, find out there's nothing doing, and move on somewhere else, or return home). It's all quite logical really.
As others have said, it's just one aspect of a whole host of issues around Brexit, obsessing on one subject isn't necessarily a good thing.
Reading the blurb about this show - it didn't quite go the way they expected (but exactly the way I expected...).
"...the women who run the firm are confident they can find hard-working Brits to enrol. However, they soon find that people are less enthusiastic about the jobs than expected".
Yes - but the focus seems to be on benefit claimants- which is not a major issue for me.
My issue is that untold millions have the right to come and settle on an island. These millions will be further swelled by folk given EU citizenship (eventually) by Germany and to a lesser extent Spain in the coming years.
We have no control over that number, despite any of the postings above. The population of U.K. by mid 2020"s is already predicted at 70 million.
What is everyone's top number ? Maybe you don't have a top number, but I do - and we are well beyond it.
Yes, we need an immigrant workforce. Yes, there has always been immigration into U.K. But, even at 75000+ for Charlton v Villa the crowd inside the Valley knew it was too packed. The same is true of the UK today. So, act now to save the playing field where (e.g.)Parker and Leaburn learnt their skills before it becomes at 12 storey block of flats.
If there are no jobs and no benefit, why would they come?
Who knows/cares ? Dave promised net immigration in the tens of thousands and ended up looking foolish when he failed to deliver on the promise.
If you don't know or care, why keep posting about it? I think the answer you are looking for is " I had not thought about that, perhaps I have been making assumptions without thinking it through."
I think Dave has managed to make himself look about 100 times more foolish with a far more ill thought out idea than that one...
The fact is that dozens of people every year tell me that would like to "do what I have done" and come and live on the Algarve. The answer (for now) is "you can". There is nothing stopping them, but they don't do it. Why? Because like millions of others, despite what they say, they are happy where they are. Secure in their job, secure in their neighbourhood, they have their family and friends around them. The same applies to the vast majority of Romanians, Hungarians and Slovaks. They are not, contrary to Farage's bluster, and red top lies, waiting on the border with their suitcase just gagging to live six to a room in Stoke Newington so they can wash up in a hotel on Green Lanes. Remember the bullshit when Romanians were given the chance to move around Europe? Farage claimed there would be thousands breaking down the doors at immigration, and in fact just one bloke turned up at Luton...
There are some who will chance their arm - same as we did - but if there's no work and no dole, they go home. I saw it happen to many of my friends here during the recession.
If they are working, then there are jobs that need doing. If they are low paid, that is the decision of the employer.
The "top number" is when the UK does not have jobs for them. If the government chooses not to tax those employers saving money on wages, by taxing them more highly on their increased profits to pay for the infrastructure for the increased population , that is down to you to vote for a government that will.
You asked "why do they keep coming" I answered "who knows or cares"
If you know why they keep coming, or how to stop the hundreds of thousands that are swelling the UK population every year - please tell. Then I can lobby to cancel Brexit and enact your solution instead.
Unemployment is currently around 4% - when you say "no jobs left for them" do you mean when unemployment at 0% ?
Unemployment at 0% would surely mean the worker has the upper hand and can demand higher wages - thus making a job in the U.K. more attractive and more reason to come here ?
The unemployment rate is only half the picture. In the UK, only around a quarter of the unemployed are long-term unemployed. It would be better to describe the other 75% as "between jobs". So, while there are 1.44mn unemployed there are also 0.8mn job vacancies. In other words, 4% does pretty much equate to full employment.
In fact the BoE has calculated that structural full employment - that is everyone being able to find a job if they want one - equates to an unemployment rate of 5%. Anything lower than that is deemed bad for the economy as it's not consistent with stable inflation.
Just by way of comparison, Ireland's long-term unemployed, is 55% of 6.8% unemployed.
From my perspective, an interesting read (though Lacpatrick seem to be better able to deal with border issues than many of its competitors - mostly because a lot of its exports, unlike for those producing cheddar, will have a wide range of possible markets).
Mind you, it's not Strabane, it's Artigarvan (which is at least a mile out of town...
So dairy farmers in NI get 87% of their income from the eu. That £350 million Farage and Boris have up their sleeve is going to have to be spread pretty thinly.
From my perspective, an interesting read (though Lacpatrick seem to be better able to deal with border issues than many of its competitors - mostly because a lot of its exports, unlike for those producing cheddar, will have a wide range of possible markets).
Mind you, it's not Strabane, it's Artigarvan (which is at least a mile out of town...
So dairy farmers in NI get 87% of their income from the eu. That £350 million Farage and Boris have up their sleeve is going to have to be spread pretty thinly.
It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of farms in Ireland (north and South) are owned by the families farming them (unlike the case in many parts of Britain), a result of 19th Century land agitation. This land ownership both serves to limit outgoings, and provides a safety net (if the worst happens).
I remember, though I cannot quote chapter and verse, a study carried out around 15-20 years ago that made clear, in the Republic, that farm incomes are generally inaccurately calculated, because the vast majority of farmers do not calculate the hours they work (c70 per week on average), or those of other family members. So, even with EU payments, it is unlikely that many are profitable.
You started it last week by asking a ludicrous question about the irish border to my joke response about being on page 2. You may love love the irish.... I have their blood in me and apart from these pages never tell anyone.
I don’t get it.
You are obviously not a stupid man. You are entitled to call yourself doctor. That takes intelligence.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t seem to understand that your overtly and blatant anti Irish posts are insulting to quite a few posters on this forum. You could make an argument in saying your posts are bordering on racism. You don’t have to be talking about people with brown faces for a comment to be racist.
Why would someone go out of their way to insult fellow lifers based on their ethnicity ?
You are obviously totally oblivious to the fact that it’s insulting or you want to insult people.
In the last week i have been called a little englander rascist and now an ignorant brexit twat. Look back over the last few pages and quote me where i have done simular.
Why do people ask me about the border when i hate my irish ancestry. As i said last week, if you don't like the answer, don't ask me the question.
What amazes me is that the remainers here call brexiters disgusting things, yet when a comment is made back, the rat pack don't like it.
Why arnt you asking those on your side why they are doing it. Bit two faced isn't it.
But why insult the Irish ?
Why not... They hate us so cant i hate them... Scots hate us welsh do... But its a crime to reciprocate.... And btw i have every reason to..... Tell me the last time an english fan donned the opposite shirt in a sports match.....
A bloke with his Welsh friends in the pub I was in this afternoon had an Australia top on.
Next myth please...
You knew what i meant
You asked someone to tell you "the last time an english fan donned the opposite shirt in a sports match", and I did. Sorry if it spoiled your theory, that's what facts do. Don't ask the question if you are not prepared for the answer to contradict your belief.
Comments
As @Bournemouth Addick asked, why do you have to be so abrasive on the issue? - in this case the incarcerated Mrs Ratcliffe.
You seriously think I somehow support the Iranian regime and its appalling behaviour? If so, have a word with yourself. The reason I don't mention it on this thread is that i raised Johnson and Gove's behaviour in the context of Brexit, the topic of this thread.
It is ridiculous to argue on here whether Mrs Ratcliffe's blood has physically been spilled or not. You doubtless heard her husband today on the matter. He actually doesn't want Johnson sacked at this time, and if that's his belief, that's to be respected. We can wait for the Olympic Stadium inquiry to be published; with any luck she will be home by then, and that will do for him.
I'm not sure that deciding to stay in the EU would have caused significant numbers of EU medical professionals to leave the UK, nor how not introducing customs infrastructure in Northern Ireland would further embolden idiot terrorists in Northern Ireland.
But we are where we are (in my case, hating fat finger syndrome/predictive text on my phone as well as Brexit).
If it wants to be outside the Customs Union and the Single Market, there will have to be a customs border, even temporarily (but temporary solutions have a terrible tendency to become permanent)..
The EU offer of trading arrangements is effectively the Norway option (EFTA and EEA) or a Free Trade Agreement (like Canada). Of the two, the only one that has any chance of being implemented within the time remaining (including the transition period envisaged by T May), is EEA. However, Norway has to have customs controls on its land border with the EU (admittedly shared, so some on the Swedish side and some in Norway) and smuggling is a major problem.
It does not appear that the UK is willing to accept the Norway model. It is seeking a bespoke deal, with much greater access to the Single Market than CETA, for one, allows, but the EU is effectively saying that the UK cannot have this kind of semi-detached Single Market membership. Even if the EU was willing to agree such an arrangement, the current degree of integration would mean that agreeing it, or any other FTA would be hugely complex and time-consuming. There is no way that any comprehensive Free Trade Agreement would be in place within the time period specified by the UK Government (and, in fairness, the EU Parliament), including transition. This would mean that there would be a border without a deal in place/
If customs controls are not implemented at a country's borders, under WTO rules, that country is obliged to provide exactly the same access for everyone. The EU will not (because it is a rules based organisation that established common standards, etc.) open up its borders to allow untrammelled access to all and sundry, just to please David Davis. The EU is very keen to prevent sub-standard goods being imported into the Single Market, which is the reason why HMRC is having to pay a fine, for allowing vast quantities of Chinese goods enter the EU without adequate inspection.
Of course, it could be that the UK Government's solution is a cunning ploy to implement Professor Minford's unilateral free trade on the sly (but the flaw in this argument, like that of unilateral nuclear disarmament, is that once you have implemented the policy, there is no incentive for your partners to reciprocate - in effect, for much of the UK economy, it would be like the Government subsidising imports at their expense).
Now, of the actual number of 64mn, around 5.3mn are non-British of which 2.9mn are from the EU. (There are also maybe 1.2mn UK nationals elsewhere in the EU.)
That leads onto birth rates. Recent ONS data show that for 2016, 28.2% (the highest ever) of births in the UK were to women who were not born here. By way of comparison, in 1990, that percentage was 11.6%. The ONS helpfully gives reasons for this record level. The main one being: "women born in certain countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and African countries tend to have above-average fertility".
You'll note that none of these countries are in the EU though. And we could have controlled (or stopped) immigration from all of them if we had so wished.
'So people who have bombed each other for decades' and changed it to 'So people who have bombed each other for reasons'.
The reasons are the key factor. In the face of other terror threats there is a concept of 'de-radicalisation' which is an attempt to engage with the reasons why people do terrible things. Given the significance of the Good Friday Agreement some of the reasons for conflict, like the border, were softened.
if there is a notion that 'these people have been at it for decades so what's new?', then that notion ignores that there has been relatively new initiatives in the peace process which have helped, and are now at risk.
The Good Friday agreement has diluted the notion that people have been bombing each-other for decades and will therefore continue, and the terror has been reduced massively. I disagree with you if you mean that being worried about an increase in terror make you a drama queen, because it has been demonstrated that with effort terror can be decreased.
Good points, Seth.
Can I ask why the (massive) decommissioning of weapons, greatly increased intelligence and shared initiatives, the much more positive cross party/and seemingly sectarian (which IMO having considerable experience there,will never be fully resolved, hence the continued threat of violence underpinning much of life and organised crime) co-operation, the wonderful efforts towards positive action powered by the will of the people will be, as you say, at risk?
How will they be at risk?
Is this real or imagined?
The risk will be the establishment of a hard border because of brexit.
I have commented before that there are as far as I can see it only two choices, no border as there is now beyond a few quaint road signs and markings, and a border with any kind of control which would be a hard border.
Right now I can travel to and fro from Lee to Greenwich, or Greenwich to Central London, or London to Bristol, or Bristol to Cardiff, or Cardiff to Lancaster, or Lancaster to Glasgow, or Glasgow to Belfast, or Belfast to Dublin without a heed. If I were taking my garden grown potatoes with me to sell in any of those places I can do it without a hindrance.
If I had to have checks, and costs, and rules and regulations and paperwork as I take myself and my spuds through Blackheath to Greenwich it would become (quote W1A) a bummer.
For many reasons such restrictions on the island of Ireland would be a bummer to the power of 10, and enough to stir up trouble by the usual suspects especially because of the historic reasons being brought back to create enmity. Have you seen the pictures of the walls in Belfast, they are bummer enough?
Perhaps it might be even worth looking at this brexit border thing another way and asking a different question, would a hard border help the peace process?
FWIW, I don't think any kind of border has to be seen as a hard border. Just because you can only see two options doesn't mean that compromises cant be struck.
I also really don't think a hard border will materialise, and so I am not predicting the death and mayhem the few on here seem to enjoy predicting. Maybe I'm naive, maybe not. Time will tell.
(FYI I have spent a considerable time in and around the Divis Road flats before the demolition process, so yes I have seen plenty of pictures, and recently went back to gaze in awe at the tourist industry capitalising on them.)
To the main point.
Perhaps we should cross bridges when we come to them, because a lot of the doom predictions are very much hypothetical, yet 6 posters on CL seem obsessed with what might be, and are full of hyperbolic outrage at every possible future
I assume you are including Phil in that with his hoards of foreigners pouring in to make the queue at Tesco longer?
Nothing hypothetical about my population issue. The queue at Tesco is getting longer every day that we allow unrestricted access to the UK from EU.
I think Dave has managed to make himself look about 100 times more foolish with a far more ill thought out idea than that one...
The fact is that dozens of people every year tell me that would like to "do what I have done" and come and live on the Algarve. The answer (for now) is "you can". There is nothing stopping them, but they don't do it. Why? Because like millions of others, despite what they say, they are happy where they are. Secure in their job, secure in their neighbourhood, they have their family and friends around them. The same applies to the vast majority of Romanians, Hungarians and Slovaks. They are not, contrary to Farage's bluster, and red top lies, waiting on the border with their suitcase just gagging to live six to a room in Stoke Newington so they can wash up in a hotel on Green Lanes. Remember the bullshit when Romanians were given the chance to move around Europe? Farage claimed there would be thousands breaking down the doors at immigration, and in fact just one bloke turned up at Luton...
There are some who will chance their arm - same as we did - but if there's no work and no dole, they go home. I saw it happen to many of my friends here during the recession.
If they are working, then there are jobs that need doing. If they are low paid, that is the decision of the employer.
The "top number" is when the UK does not have jobs for them. If the government chooses not to tax those employers saving money on wages, by taxing them more highly on their increased profits to pay for the infrastructure for the increased population , that is down to you to vote for a government that will.
We have controlled non Eu immigration but not as much as some would have liked. When I was looking at the ons stats I think it's also the case from Eurostat source (the eu equivalent of ons) that by some date 2040 if I recall we will have the largest population in the eu bigger than France or Germany. Now for a country that can't organise a new runway at Heathrow for decades that requires some substantial step up in organisation. Personally I would prefer some tighter controls across the board. Hence my leave vote.
It looks to me that the brexit vote will make no difference at all in the area of population. I am prepared for somebody to persuade me it will.
So, on the basis that vaguely half the population are woman, without immigration, in theory, we need an average of 2.0 just to stand still on population figures.
It is also quite possible that rather than immigration and birth rates being the big issue with regards to population it's the fact that people are living longer that has been a major driver for the overall population increase. Again, according to the ONS, "Age-Standardised Mortality Rates" have shifted from 1511 per 100,000 men and 1046 per 100,000 woman in 2001 to 1156 and 863 in 2015. That's a pretty hefty change over a quite short period. We could be living in the very opposite of "No Country For Old Men".
I answered "who knows or cares"
If you know why they keep coming, or how to stop the hundreds of thousands that are swelling the UK population every year - please tell. Then I can lobby to cancel Brexit and enact your solution instead.
Unemployment is currently around 4% - when you say "no jobs left for them"
do you mean when unemployment at 0% ?
Unemployment at 0% would surely mean the worker has the upper hand and can demand higher wages - thus making a job in the U.K. more attractive and more reason to come here ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/sunday-review/britain-identity-crisis.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Mind you, it's not Strabane, it's Artigarvan (which is at least a mile out of town...)
https://theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/13/food-prices-would-soar-after-no-deal-brexit-warns-major-dairy-boss
1) If you know why they keep coming - because there are jobs that need doing, that they do.
2) how to stop the hundreds of thousands that are swelling the UK population every year - there is no need to. They are needed to work, see answer 1).
3) Unemployment is currently around 4% - when you say "no jobs left for them" do you mean when unemployment at 0% ?
Unemployment at 0% would surely mean the worker has the upper hand and can demand higher wages - thus making a job in the U.K. more attractive and more reason to come here? - Unemployment will never be at 0%, no matter how much governments massage the figures. When I say no jobs for them it ties in with my previous statement that if there are no jobs and no benefits why would they come? At the moment, there are jobs for them, so they continue to come and do those jobs, when there are no jobs, they will stop coming (or arrive, find out there's nothing doing, and move on somewhere else, or return home). It's all quite logical really.
As others have said, it's just one aspect of a whole host of issues around Brexit, obsessing on one subject isn't necessarily a good thing.
Reading the blurb about this show - it didn't quite go the way they expected (but exactly the way I expected...).
"...the women who run the firm are confident they can find hard-working Brits to enrol. However, they soon find that people are less enthusiastic about the jobs than expected".
In fact the BoE has calculated that structural full employment - that is everyone being able to find a job if they want one - equates to an unemployment rate of 5%. Anything lower than that is deemed bad for the economy as it's not consistent with stable inflation.
Just by way of comparison, Ireland's long-term unemployed, is 55% of 6.8% unemployed.
So dairy farmers in NI get 87% of their income from the eu. That £350 million Farage and Boris have up their sleeve is going to have to be spread pretty thinly.
I remember, though I cannot quote chapter and verse, a study carried out around 15-20 years ago that made clear, in the Republic, that farm incomes are generally inaccurately calculated, because the vast majority of farmers do not calculate the hours they work (c70 per week on average), or those of other family members. So, even with EU payments, it is unlikely that many are profitable.