Brexit

[prv]

More than that. If you look at the parts of the country that recorded the highest leave votes you can see it was a combination of factors. Decimation of local industry (coal, steel, fishing etc - the last due directly to EU policies) and rapid influx migrants.

Certainly agree on the "decimation of industry" part - but everything I've read is that the areas with large immigrant populations tended to vote remain, whereas "leave" areas tend to have fewer immigrants (hence, one might speculate, basing their view of the subject on the Sun and Mail rather than their own eyes).

I will admit, however, that I haven't checked any primary sources. I'd be interested if you have them to hand.

Pete

 

[GrahamM376]

Certainly agree on the "decimation of industry" part - but everything I've read is that the areas with large immigrant populations tended to vote remain, whereas "leave" areas tend to have fewer immigrants (hence, one might speculate, basing their view of the subject on the Sun and Mail rather than their own eyes). I will admit, however, that I haven't checked any primary sources. I'd be interested if you have them to hand. Pete

Hardly surprising when places like London voted to stay, IIRC the last census showed only 47% of population is white English born.

The information placed before the public was rubbish in many ways, Cameron not too long ago was telling Europe we could manage quite well without them if they didn't make a few minor changes and then, in the next breath, he's saying we can't do without them - which do people believe? Brexit campaign assured everyone we would have trade deals with restricted immigration, what a load of *rap that was.

OK, I missed a lot of the campaigning but, watching TV news and the odd debate, The govenment including the opposition were negligent in not presenting the facts clearly enough and the Brexit info was based on lies and half truths.

Personally, I would have preferred an exit planned well in advance with all pros and cons known in advance.

I wonder if someone took this to the court of human rights, a second vote would be called?

 

[rivonia]

You disgust me, but then again you always have.

I have never ever met you Thank goodness. I can see why you have NO FRIENDS.

 

[Carmel2]

I have never ever met you Thank goodness. I can see why you have NO FRIENDS.

Shouty man who is an immigrant in Cyprus, you called me all the names under the sun when I informed you that the Dekpa was going to be a once a year stamp....lies, gossipmonger and on and for pages..........Then it came to pass; did you apologise? NO! Then you spread a whole bunch of nonsense about the the blue card in Turkey, only to be revealed as a twat who edited his posts to fit the bullshit you passed on as fact.

You have met me, you were at the bottom of C pontoon in Ag Nik and I was at the other end. I felt I had two options: punch the living daylights out of you, or ignore you. I chose the latter. I know a fair few folk who have come across you and the common thread is complete buffoon.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Shouty man who is an immigrant in Cyprus, you called me all the names under the sun when I informed you that the Dekpa was going to be a once a year stamp....lies, gossipmonger and on and for pages..........Then it came to pass; did you apologise? NO! Then you spread a whole bunch of nonsense about the the blue card in Turkey, only to be revealed as a twat who edited his posts to fit the bullshit you passed on as fact.

You have met me, you were at the bottom of C pontoon in Ag Nik and I was at the other end. I felt I had two options: punch the living daylights out of you, or ignore you. I chose the latter. I know a fair few folk who have come across you and the common thread is complete buffoon.

Oh dear Paul , he as got up your nose .

 

[Carmel2]

Oh dear Paul , he as got up your nose .

Do you know him Vic?

 

[sailaboutvic]

Do you know him Vic?

No . Never met him ,

 

[Carmel2]

No . Never met him ,

Keep it that way. Odious racist little tit .

 

[Tranona]

Certainly agree on the "decimation of industry" part - but everything I've read is that the areas with large immigrant populations tended to vote remain, whereas "leave" areas tend to have fewer immigrants (hence, one might speculate, basing their view of the subject on the Sun and Mail rather than their own eyes).

I will admit, however, that I haven't checked any primary sources. I'd be interested if you have them to hand.

Pete

The problem is classifying all immigrants the same. If you look at the areas down the east coast which all had high leaver votes, they are the areas that have experienced significant influx of east European migrants in the last 5 years. If you go back to the accession times for the Baltic countries and more recently the Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary we were assured that migration would be small - nothing to worry about. Could not have been more wrong - and hardly surprising given the difference in living standards and the potential benefits available in the UK. These are areas that were already poorly served with public services and declining economic activity.

The only area with large immigrant population that voted remain was the London area.

One can only hope that government takes the multiple messages from the referendum seriously and is radical in the way it tackles them. Not holding my breath as all the signs are that the radical thinkers and doers will lose out to the fudgers.

 

[Seven Spades]

I vote to leave will initiate a contraction in the UK economy - I am sure of that. And when that happens, there will be less tax revenue so spending on everything, NHS, Defense etc etc will drop or the country will go further into debt. Investment in industry will not happen because of economic uncertainty. That is all quite certain. Net result, even before negotiations begin will be that the UK and its people will be poorer than they were the day before the vote.

You don't get it do you. We cannot operate our economy on the basis of a Ponzi scheme with immigration with each new influx supporting the last until they to become a burden on the state. We have to reach a point where we are sustainable with a stable population. if not now when the population reaches 80, 100, 150 or 200 million. It is an undeniable truth that at some point we must become sustainable.

To achieve that we will have to change things and that means government must have balanced budgets and that means a smaller social benefit system. It means we need to stop making contributions to the Eu to do things we can do perfectly well ourselves. It means that some 16 year olds will have to go to work instead of wasting two years of their lives being forced to continue education. It also means that equalising pension ages (the sooner the better I can't understand the phased in approach of the government).

The long term benefits are that we might be able to grow enough food to feed ourselves as the world is going to reach peek food and what guarantee do we have that we will be able to import it? We might also be able to get from a to b without sitting in traffic jams, we might be able to send our children to the local school and the good jobs will chase out the bad which means low paid jobs will become more lucrative.

The benefits are huge in terms of quality of life. We just need a government willing to implement it. May will sell us out, her ministers will run rings around her and she won't sack Hammond (probably Britons worst MP, even worse than Osborne).

 

[Bobc]

You don't get it do you. We cannot operate our economy on the basis of a Ponzi scheme with immigration with each new influx supporting the last until they to become a burden on the state. We have to reach a point where we are sustainable with a stable population. if not now when the population reaches 80, 100, 150 or 200 million. It is an undeniable truth that at some point we must become sustainable.

To achieve that we will have to change things and that means government must have balanced budgets and that means a smaller social benefit system. It means we need to stop making contributions to the Eu to do things we can do perfectly well ourselves. It means that some 16 year olds will have to go to work instead of wasting two years of their lives being forced to continue education. It also means that equalising pension ages (the sooner the better I can't understand the phased in approach of the government).

The long term benefits are that we might be able to grow enough food to feed ourselves as the world is going to reach peek food and what guarantee do we have that we will be able to import it? We might also be able to get from a to b without sitting in traffic jams, we might be able to send our children to the local school and the good jobs will chase out the bad which means low paid jobs will become more lucrative.

The benefits are huge in terms of quality of life. We just need a government willing to implement it. May will sell us out, her ministers will run rings around her and she won't sack Hammond (probably Britons worst MP, even worse than Osborne).

Here here. Well said.

 

[Capt Popeye]

You don't get it do you. We cannot operate our economy on the basis of a Ponzi scheme with immigration with each new influx supporting the last until they to become a burden on the state. We have to reach a point where we are sustainable with a stable population. if not now when the population reaches 80, 100, 150 or 200 million. It is an undeniable truth that at some point we must become sustainable.

To achieve that we will have to change things and that means government must have balanced budgets and that means a smaller social benefit system. It means we need to stop making contributions to the Eu to do things we can do perfectly well ourselves. It means that some 16 year olds will have to go to work instead of wasting two years of their lives being forced to continue education. It also means that equalising pension ages (the sooner the better I can't understand the phased in approach of the government).

The long term benefits are that we might be able to grow enough food to feed ourselves as the world is going to reach peek food and what guarantee do we have that we will be able to import it? We might also be able to get from a to b without sitting in traffic jams, we might be able to send our children to the local school and the good jobs will chase out the bad which means low paid jobs will become more lucrative.

The benefits are huge in terms of quality of life. We just need a government willing to implement it. May will sell us out, her ministers will run rings around her and she won't sack Hammond (probably Britons worst MP, even worse than Osborne).

Humm, well said that man, thank you for taking time to post such accurate perceptive statements on a convoluted subject, fraught with 'red herrings', trivia and great big fibs oh and some devilment.

These 'ponzi' schemes seem to appeal to politicians and some members of the public alike, both are gullible and misinformed.

 

[stu9000]

If everybody made a decision based on how it affected them rather than some mythical goal of "retaining sovereignty" what ever that means to the the average person, we would be staying in the EU. Yes, it needs reform, with a competent politician to lead the charge, like Kurz in Austria, instead of the yar boo sucks schoolboys we have at the moment...... But I digress. All the intelligent educated specialists say that leaving would be harmful to the economy. Good enough for me.

"retaining sovereignty" is all about being able to hold ones politicians to account. The "intelligent educated specialists" you mention have indeed expressed many economic concerns. I agree that they should be taken seriously. However if the question is 'should we sell our sovereignty for a percentage point of GDP'? I personally do not think so.

The media and our political parties have completely failed to explore these issues. It is easy to bash politicians. It can be lazy thinking in my view. But instead of hearing reasoned discussion we got fear-mongering or ridiculous statements about how much the NHS would get.

No wonder we are all worried.

 

[Tony Cross]

"retaining sovereignty" is all about being able to hold ones politicians to account. The "intelligent educated specialists" you mention have indeed expressed many economic concerns. I agree that they should be taken seriously. However if the question is 'should we sell our sovereignty for a percentage point of GDP'? I personally do not think so.

The media and our political parties have completely failed to explore these issues. It is easy to bash politicians. It can be lazy thinking in my view. But instead of hearing reasoned discussion we got fear-mongering or ridiculous statements about how much the NHS would get.

No wonder we are all worried.

'Sovereignty' is a myth. In today's connected world and global economy you simply cannot do as you please and expect to thrive.

 

[macd]

'Sovereignty' is a myth.

It's also a bloody long way from the OP's question.
Actually I'm fairly relaxed about threads drifting. But entire countries...now that's a different matter.

 

[Squeaky]

Good afternoon:

Seems a bit ironic that someone is classifying sovereignty as a myth just after the celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme where tens of thousands young men died.

Cheers

Squeaky

 

[macd]

Seems a bit ironic that someone is classifying sovereignty as a myth just after the celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme where tens of thousands young men died.

The bigger irony surely lies in the fact that the donkeys were sovereign, the lions just cannon-fodder. Plus ca change...

 

[Koeketiene]

Good afternoon:

Seems a bit ironic that someone is classifying sovereignty as a myth just after the celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme where tens of thousands young men died.

Cheers

Squeaky

And do you really believe that all those soldiers died for 'sovereignty'?

More likely, they found themselves at the Somme because:
1. they were conscripted
2. General Haig was desperate to move his drinks cabinet 100yds closer to Berlin.

 

[Tony Cross]

Good afternoon:

Seems a bit ironic that someone is classifying sovereignty as a myth just after the celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme where tens of thousands young men died.

Cheers

Squeaky

I doubt very much they died for some woolly idea called 'sovereignty'. They probably would tell you they died because they were there, they had no choice.

 

[ITH]

I doubt very much they died for some woolly idea called 'sovereignty'. They probably would tell you they died because they were there, they had no choice.

Not really supported by facts Tony; far from having no choice huge numbers volunteered for service: -

"While conscript armies proved indispensable, and even the British in 1916 and the Americans in 1917 began to draft men, significant numbers of volunteers also served in the First World War. Most famously, in Britain 2,675,149 men volunteered, the vast majority in the first half of hostilities." - See more at: http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/recruitment-conscripts-and-volunteers#sthash.edGkqzqu.dpuf