Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[///ajd]

Pan Pan Pan said:

When Immigration and emigration is mentioned, we are told that there are approximately 3.9 million EU nationals living and working in the UK compared to approximately 1.6 million UK nationals living and working in the EU.
The key difference is that those 3.9 million have moved into an area of 94 thousand square miles, whereas UK nationals have moved into an area of 3.39 million square miles.
If anyone cannot see the difference that these numbers will have on each side of the immigration boundary, they are either being a bit dense or deliberately ignoring the relative effects that the influx of such numbers into each side of the boundary will have and is having.
It is not simply a matter of space (the entire human population of the Earth could fit onto the Isle of Wight) but of the effects that the numbers, differences in language, differences in cultures, differences in religions and many more matters is going to have on the smaller entity out of the two areas involved.
I don't care a jot about who they are or where the numbers are coming from, without adequate border controls, the smaller area is in danger of being overwhelmed by sheer numbers, as problems with housing, transport, schools and the health system currently attest.
Without adequate immigration controls, which are only possible if the UK goes out side the EU. the future for the UK as a cohesive nations looks decidedly perilous.

Its not just about immigration though, right?

Funny to see pages and pages of comments in the last few days - and what is the dominant subject?

You'd think it's be dominated by discussions on sovereignty, seeing how that was the no.1 reason......perhaps it was sovereignty to control immigration......

And why all the hate for the single market? That pesky external tariff, or perhaps one of the related freedoms? Which could it be. Shame to see us come to despise something Maggie so cleverly put together to our advantage.

[Pan Pan Pan]

r

///ajd said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

When Immigration and emigration is mentioned, we are told that there are approximately 3.9 million EU nationals living and working in the UK compared to approximately 1.6 million UK nationals living and working in the EU.
The key difference is that those 3.9 million have moved into an area of 94 thousand square miles, whereas UK nationals have moved into an area of 3.39 million square miles.
If anyone cannot see the difference that these numbers will have on each side of the immigration boundary, they are either being a bit dense or deliberately ignoring the relative effects that the influx of such numbers into each side of the boundary will have and is having.
It is not simply a matter of space (the entire human population of the Earth could fit onto the Isle of Wight) but of the effects that the numbers, differences in language, differences in cultures, differences in religions and many more matters is going to have on the smaller entity out of the two areas involved.
I don't care a jot about who they are or where the numbers are coming from, without adequate border controls, the smaller area is in danger of being overwhelmed by sheer numbers, as problems with housing, transport, schools and the health system currently attest.
Without adequate immigration controls, which are only possible if the UK goes out side the EU. the future for the UK as a cohesive nations looks decidedly perilous.

Its not just about immigration though, right?

Funny to see pages and pages of comments in the last few days - and what is the dominant subject?

You'd think it's be dominated by discussions on sovereignty, seeing how that was the no.1 reason......perhaps it was sovereignty to control immigration......

And why all the hate for the single market? That pesky external tariff, or perhaps one of the related freedoms? Which could it be. Shame to see us come to despise something Maggie so cleverly put together to our advantage.

Wrong yet again. Immigration was just ONE of the reasons people gave for wanting to leave the EU. and for many it was not the main reason. It just happens to be one of the reasons that is being touched on, in this thread at the moment.
As I said before, if you don't believe a small country like the UK taking in vast numbers of extra people from all over the globe every year is a problem, please provide your full name and address, so that the next 40 or 50 immigrants, can be sent round to your house, where you will then feed, clothe and accommodate them, also provide them with entertainment, and of course spending money, all at YOUR expense, and your expense only (if you think letting this happen is OK, you should put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is) then come back in a year and tell us how you got on. You could of course be like those such as Lilly Allen, or Yvette Cooper, or any other of those big mouthed luvvies, who in the end did not put their substantial monies where there very big mouths were, and take these immigrants in. Its always someone else`s job to do that isn't it?

[B'stard Child]

alfie2244 said:

///ajd said:

His Nigelness seems to be looking down sneeringly on his faithful.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/09/n...

What sort of things does he imagine his branch secretary in Lower Slaughter would say half-cut on Twitter, and why would that be a headache?

You come across as a fixated bunny boiler....did you loosen his wheelnuts?

I had 11 reasons to stay and 273 reasons to leave - I realise that it doesn't make me very balanced but I worked through a process I've used on many occasions to make major decisions in my life - the decision and the pros and cons on each side of a sheet of paper.

I have a small concern with anyone who worked thro a similar process and could find nothing to recommend one of the binary options

It shows clearly they are unbalanced

[Deptford Draylons]

Deptford Draylons said:

///ajd said:

Deptford Draylons said:

///ajd said:

I'm getting the impression the noisier ones will be quite disappointed when May gets a Single Market deal to keep Nissan et al happy.

You told us just after Nissan announced continued production they were getting compensation from HMG if facing tariffs. Is that still your thoughts on what will happen ?

That was my thought when it seemed possible May was going for hard brexit - which was the tone in the run up to the meeting.

After the meeting it was clarified that as well as some local sweeteners on training and around the Nissan plant, they would secure a deal with the EU on aspects related to the Single Market. As Nissan would not be out of pocket or worse off vs the EU, compensation for hard tariff riddled brexit would not be required.

It should not be hard to work out why both positions are logical. I'm not convinced there is not more to the deal than "we'll try" when it comes to tariffs - I could be wrong but I suspect it is more concrete than that.

From my admittedly limited understanding of what could happen, any compensation if facing tariffs would be illegal and a non starter on why you term ' hard brexit '.
Second is I was unaware we have had and clarification on why Nissan stayed , other than the talk of training. I don't see how you can claim this has happened in relation to easing Nissan 's concern on the single market unless May has already agreed something with the EU. I think I prefer to say both of us just don't know yet.

I was hoping you'd post the details.

[alfie2244]

Pan Pan Pan said:

As I said before, if you don't believe a small country like the UK taking in vast numbers of extra people from all over the globe every year is a problem, please provide your full name and address, so that the next 40 or 50 immigrants, can be sent round to your house, where you will then feed, clothe and accommodate them, also provide them with entertainment, and of course spending money, all at YOUR expense, and your expense only (if you think letting this happen is OK, you should put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is) then come back in a year and tell us how you got on. You could of course be like those such as Lilly Allen, or Yvette Cooper, or any other of those big mouthed luvvies, who in the end did not put their substantial monies where there very big mouths were, and take these immigrants in. Its always someone else`s job to do that isn't it?

If he doesn't want them in his chateaux (frankly who would?) perhaps they could stay in his gite?

[confused_buyer]

///ajd said:

Its not just about immigration though, right?

And why all the hate for the single market? That pesky external tariff, or perhaps one of the related freedoms? Which could it be. Shame to see us come to despise something Maggie so cleverly put together to our advantage.

Can you explain why opposition to EC/EU membership was running at 40-45% and sometimes above "stay" as long a go as 1990 well before the Single Market if it has always been about immigration for those opposed to the EU?

External common tariffs are part of the Customs Union btw - not the Single Market.

[AC43]

Pan Pan Pan said:

r

///ajd said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

When Immigration and emigration is mentioned, we are told that there are approximately 3.9 million EU nationals living and working in the UK compared to approximately 1.6 million UK nationals living and working in the EU.
The key difference is that those 3.9 million have moved into an area of 94 thousand square miles, whereas UK nationals have moved into an area of 3.39 million square miles.
If anyone cannot see the difference that these numbers will have on each side of the immigration boundary, they are either being a bit dense or deliberately ignoring the relative effects that the influx of such numbers into each side of the boundary will have and is having.
It is not simply a matter of space (the entire human population of the Earth could fit onto the Isle of Wight) but of the effects that the numbers, differences in language, differences in cultures, differences in religions and many more matters is going to have on the smaller entity out of the two areas involved.
I don't care a jot about who they are or where the numbers are coming from, without adequate border controls, the smaller area is in danger of being overwhelmed by sheer numbers, as problems with housing, transport, schools and the health system currently attest.
Without adequate immigration controls, which are only possible if the UK goes out side the EU. the future for the UK as a cohesive nations looks decidedly perilous.

Its not just about immigration though, right?

Funny to see pages and pages of comments in the last few days - and what is the dominant subject?

You'd think it's be dominated by discussions on sovereignty, seeing how that was the no.1 reason......perhaps it was sovereignty to control immigration......

And why all the hate for the single market? That pesky external tariff, or perhaps one of the related freedoms? Which could it be. Shame to see us come to despise something Maggie so cleverly put together to our advantage.

Wrong yet again. Immigration was just ONE of the reasons people gave for wanting to leave the EU. and for many it was not the main reason. It just happens to be one of the reasons that is being touched on, in this thread at the moment.
As I said before, if you don't believe a small country like the UK taking in vast numbers of extra people from all over the globe every year is a problem, please provide your full name and address, so that the next 40 or 50 immigrants, can be sent round to your house, where you will then feed, clothe and accommodate them, also provide them with entertainment, and of course spending money, all at YOUR expense, and your expense only (if you think letting this happen is OK, you should put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is) then come back in a year and tell us how you got on. You could of course be like those such as Lilly Allen, or Yvette Cooper, or any other of those big mouthed luvvies, who in the end did not put their substantial monies where there very big mouths were, and take these immigrants in. Its always someone else`s job to do that isn't it?

Well I live in the area (London) that's surely most "hit" by immigration and I don't come across anyone moaning about it. Most immigrants come here to build a better life and work their nuts off, often grateful to have jobs that the locals can't/won't do. They build the economy they're not a drag on it.

And before someone accuses me of "virtue signalling" I'm not. I'm just pointing out the net gain to economies that embrace immigration.

And I find it odd that people in other parts of the country far less affected by immigration belly ache about it and try to stop it.

The place has gone nuts.

[s2art]

AC43 said:

Well I live in the area (London) that's surely most "hit" by immigration and I don't come across anyone moaning about it. Most immigrants come here to build a better life and work their nuts off, often grateful to have jobs that the locals can't/won't do. They build the economy they're not a drag on it.

But is London a special case in that there will be a higher proportion of skilled and 'elite' immigrants going there compared to other areas of the country?

[///ajd]

alfie2244 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As I said before, if you don't believe a small country like the UK taking in vast numbers of extra people from all over the globe every year is a problem, please provide your full name and address, so that the next 40 or 50 immigrants, can be sent round to your house, where you will then feed, clothe and accommodate them, also provide them with entertainment, and of course spending money, all at YOUR expense, and your expense only (if you think letting this happen is OK, you should put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is) then come back in a year and tell us how you got on. You could of course be like those such as Lilly Allen, or Yvette Cooper, or any other of those big mouthed luvvies, who in the end did not put their substantial monies where there very big mouths were, and take these immigrants in. Its always someone else`s job to do that isn't it?

If he doesn't want them in his chateaux (frankly who would?) perhaps they could stay in his gite?

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and
- even where immigrants are supported, I pay my taxes and help fund them. We all do. And thankfully whilst we have a booming GDP and lots of economy in the Single Market and loving bank GDP - 12% etc. its all under control - cost wise.

On the other hand:

- brexit could put a £100Bn black hole in our finances.

Can you dip into your pocket please to refund the NHS etc. for all the money it will LOSE due to lower GDP, productivity and less tax? Perhaps we could put a piggy bank slot in the Big Red bus and run it around the country again. The slot could say "put cash here to pay for foreigners to leave" - this would get a good chunk of the 52% dipping in their pockets going by the rantings of the last few pages. Of course it would be a lie, we'd spend it on the NHS instead and let the foreigners stay as they have to run the fking NHS. But lying is OK now isn't it as a means to an end? The ultimate irony.

I don't really want to pay for your vote. I won't feel the warm fuzzy benefit of less immigration like you will, when you visit Boston high street and it feels more British with no funny languages. If you want that, you should pay for it all yourself. The shops will still be boarded up though eh? Probably more so as we decline and even the Poles leave. How fking stupid is that!

Enjoy!

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

[s2art]

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

alfie2244 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As I said before, if you don't believe a small country like the UK taking in vast numbers of extra people from all over the globe every year is a problem, please provide your full name and address, so that the next 40 or 50 immigrants, can be sent round to your house, where you will then feed, clothe and accommodate them, also provide them with entertainment, and of course spending money, all at YOUR expense, and your expense only (if you think letting this happen is OK, you should put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is) then come back in a year and tell us how you got on. You could of course be like those such as Lilly Allen, or Yvette Cooper, or any other of those big mouthed luvvies, who in the end did not put their substantial monies where there very big mouths were, and take these immigrants in. Its always someone else`s job to do that isn't it?

If he doesn't want them in his chateaux (frankly who would?) perhaps they could stay in his gite?

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and
- even where immigrants are supported, I pay my taxes and help fund them. We all do. And thankfully whilst we have a booming GDP and lots of economy in the Single Market and loving bank GDP - 12% etc. its all under control - cost wise.

On the other hand:

- brexit could put a £100Bn black hole in our finances.

Can you dip into your pocket please to refund the NHS etc. for all the money it will LOSE due to lower GDP, productivity and less tax? Perhaps we could put a piggy bank slot in the Big Red bus and run it around the country again. The slot could say "put cash here to pay for foreigners to leave" - this would get a good chunk of the 52% dipping in their pockets going by the rantings of the last few pages. Of course it would be a lie, we'd spend it on the NHS instead and let the foreigners stay as they have to run the fking NHS. But lying is OK now isn't it as a means to an end? The ultimate irony.

I don't really want to pay for your vote. I won't feel the warm fuzzy benefit of less immigration like you will, when you visit Boston high street and it feels more British with no funny languages. If you want that, you should pay for it all yourself. The shops will still be boarded up though eh? Probably more so as we decline and even the Poles leave. How fking stupid is that!

Enjoy

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

No room at your inn then........do you have stables?

[///ajd]

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

You realise you are proving my point.

So if well paid immigrants are OK, and carers and argi workers are OK, then who is left?

How many aren't in these categories and what do they do? What's that you say - you have no idea? Tick.
What burden are they then? Oh dear again - you have no idea! Tick.
Who fills you head with all this unsubstantiated nonsense then that it costs us lots and impact the NHS? Oh yes. Tick.

[Deptford Draylons]

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Don't bother. Its another subtle little twist of the truth from ///ajd which will result in another vague non answer. See his stuff on Nissan above.
I actually recall Farage arguing that even if there was the magic boom from low skilled migration, that he thought it was worth the loss for what he argued were the benefits of reducing numbers.
I think if you want to find the 'hate filled bile' that says immigration is hardly a benefit it was a House of Lords report which was the most critical. Then again, the HoL is nearly all full of old white people you know....

Edited by Deptford Draylons on Saturday 10th December 13:39

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Do some research and stop quoting a figure which is rubbish.

Edited by Mrr T on Saturday 10th December 14:07

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

That is simpler with immigration IMO as you can control it far more simply by refusing access to the country if someone does not have a job.

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

[Jockman]

Mrr T said:

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

Is the Employer not meant to police this?

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Do some research and stop quoting a figure which is rubbish.

Edited by Mrr T on Saturday 10th December 14:07

Dont be stupid. That is the government calculated figure, and it is used for non-EU immigration purposes. It is you who needs to do some research.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17204297

Edited by s2art on Saturday 10th December 14:13

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Do some research and stop quoting a figure which is rubbish.

Edited by Mrr T on Saturday 10th December 14:07

Dont be stupid. That is the government calculated figure, and it is used for non-EU immigration purposes. It is you who needs to do some research.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17204297

Edited by s2art on Saturday 10th December 14:13

It's an arbitrary figure imposed on non EU immigrants by the government. It has nothing to do with whether an immigrant is a "net gain" or not.

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Do some research and stop quoting a figure which is rubbish.

Edited by Mrr T on Saturday 10th December 14:07

Dont be stupid. That is the government calculated figure, and it is used for non-EU immigration purposes. It is you who needs to do some research.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17204297

Edited by s2art on Saturday 10th December 14:13

It's an arbitrary figure imposed on non EU immigrants by the government. It has nothing to do with whether an immigrant is a "net gain" or not.

Wrong. Do your research.

[Mrr T]

Jockman said:

Mrr T said:

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

Is the Employer not meant to police this?

So are you going to make it an offence for an employer to have a chat about a job with some one who is not a UK resident?