BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

gaffer_slow

I don't doubt that Brussels needs real reform, it is a young organisation. - and it was perhaps hubristic and without doubt in the full flushes of ever more riches of new money pre financial crash - so bloated and wasteful and expansionist.

There is an argument to leave, but the balance is heavily in remains favor, and the motives of those advocating to Leave are hugely dubious. Europe in general in more left leaning, more in favor of regulation and favours stronger Labour laws. Vote Leave are neo-liberal free market hawks, as is Farage in my opinion (who just dresses up as Mosley for votes).

bendertherobot

coriordan wrote:

Gents, this is actually making for very good reading and further strengthening my "in" resolve. The ones which is harder to debate is the law making process.

How does it work in practice and what "control" do we have/gain/ lose from the unelected bureaucrats for voting out.

Also what about the money wastage in Brussels, lack of financial accountability, lack of filed accounts for years?

Also what about the long term aims of EU -> fiscal/monetary union / EU superstate?

Well, the lack of filed accounts is a myth. They've been signed off for years now but, as with most accounting, there' are caveats.

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditor ... eu-budget/

So there are errors and the like. But, well, that's not really different from our own Government in all likelihood.

Laws? Right. Democracy. The EU Council is democratic. It's each head of each member state. The Parliament is democratic. It's each member state's MEP's (roughly proportionate by population etc). The EU Commission is the main target for being undemocratic. There is one Commissioner from each Member State and they operate like the UK Cabinet. Indeed, they are referred to as a Cabinet.

Now, in the UK that Cabinet has a Secretary of State for X, Y, Z etc. But there's an overlap because each Cabinet Member is ALSO an MP (there are arguments that this is not a good system as MP's don't act necessarily in constituent's interests).

So, the Commission come up with ideas for laws and get those laws drafted by the EU Civil Service. The EU Parliament then votes on it. That's a democracy mostly.

There are two issues. The first is that in OUR system it's said that Government comes up with laws. True. Most of our laws come from the ideas of the political party in charge. They get carried forward to legislation which is voted on in Parliament. There are also laws which can be proposed by anyone in Parliament such as member's bills. Some succeed, some don't. The majority of our law comes from a party with political consensus.

In the EU ALL legislation comes from the Commission with NO input from member states. That's a bit false as, of course, each member state has a rep on the commission. What's at stake is the quality of the law that they want to suggest.

Then there's Parliamentary Democracy if you like. In our democracy the party with a majority wins pretty much all the time. The will of the people is carried through. That's a democracy. But, clearly, there's much to be written about whether it's truly democratic once you've elected your MP's etc

In the EU Parliament there's such a disparate group that it's often difficult to know whose voting for what and why. So you have left and right wing people, for and against x y and z. The voting is a bit different. Majority rules are different and you can read about them here:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/counc ... -majority/

Then there's the truth. Boris has made great play of the fact that we often get outvoted. That's simply not true.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-be ... influence/

Then there's the quality of the law produced. Most of the time it's law that any sensible individual would think is a good idea. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it favours some states over other states.

bendertherobot

http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FBEC130BR/ ... -271208341

gaffer_slow

bendertherobot wrote:

http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FBEC130BR/planet-x-ec130e-shimano-ultegra-6800--brexit-edition?utm_source=The+Planet+X+and+On-One+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=7c9c336a48-170616&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_561486488b-7c9c336a48-271208341

Distasteful promotion considering the sober tone ATM.

Initially thought planet x had released an official statement on the Eu referedum - advocating brexit.

PX being for Brexit makes sense after all. Gaudy unrefined Color and design schemes, dubious use of figures and maths, very keen on doing business with China. People with limited education, no experience of European sophistication and low finances love them .... without doubt PX are Brexiters :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Pross wrote:

I have to say mrfpb has made the most coherent case I've heard or read for leaving. I still think it's too optimistic and too big a gamble but at least it's reasoned and considers both sides.

Thanks, I think the standard of debate has been quite high on this thread compared to the public debate, but it has taken some effort on both sides (and a bit of moderating) to keep it that way.

Agreed with all of the above.

Appreciate the answer above and it is always best online to not be too specific. As somebody who has prospered in a multicultural UK , as part of the EU, why are you voting out?

I have avoided the multicultural/immigration debate in my posts up to now, because I don't give it the significance that most Leave campaigners do. we were a multicultural nation (albeit with a side order of ugly racism) for decades before we joined the EU. Little known fact - we elected our first Asian MP in 1892.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... ZfXq2UCDIQ

We will continue to rely on immigration for the wealth (financial and cultural) of our nation if we leave, just as we did before we joined.

My real objections to the EU are the lack of democratic accountability. EU laws are formulated by a Commission that lacks accountability. Not as much as some suggest, but as the only body that formulates laws there should be more.

Why should a MP like Chris Patten, who gets rejected at a General Election so that he can't represent a single UK constituency, then get appointed to represent the entire nation in Europe and get given the equivalent post of cabinet minister making laws for a whole continent. And cabinet ministers is what the Commissioners are, they are not civil servants as some suggest. I know the House of Lords are undemocratic but we limit their powers so they can't overrule the elected law makers.

The EU is a little undemocratic in it's institutions but worse than that has anti-democratic attitudes to it's member states. For example the Greek finance minister was excluded from some talks on the Greek Euro bailout because his party was elected on an anti-austerity platform opposed to the EU plan.

Franz Timmerman (EU commission vice president) recently threatened to block Poland's voting rights in the EU because the new right wing government is passing anti-EU laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36429325

The EU has this power since we ratified the Lisbon Treaty which David Cameron told us did not give any significant powers to the EU.

But the fact is that even the remainers don't want a large chunk of the EU deal. We don't want Schengen, the Euro, ever closer political union. A lot of people who were around in the 70's feel lied to about the federslist single state aim of the EEC, which was in place at the it's formation in the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (political union and the single currency were reasons that it was rejected out of hand at the time - ministers never contemplated putting such ascheme before parliamnet). While there is less enthusiastism for federalism among newer states, it is still the current direction of travel for the EU, otherwise we wouldn't have needed to secure an opt out.

There has been an anti-democratic effect on the UK. EU treaties don't get presented to parliament, the government writes a bill summaring what they claim are the main points, and it is the summary that gets debated and voted on, the Heath government left out any mention of federalism/political union and a single currency in the bill on joining the EEC. Parliament rejected the Maastricht Treeaty, it should have been taken back to the EC for renogtiation, but John Major forced it thorough by declaring it would be a vote of no confidence in the government to reject it a second time and making a deal with the Ulster Unionists to prop up the resulting minority government

(As an aside, when Major did this he was effectively suspending the Northern Irish peace process, as up to that point he had been acting as an arbiter between Unionists and Republicans the first Conservative leader to not always side with the Unionists. A choice between peace in Northern Ireland and pushing through the Maastricht treaty - which would you choose)

Since we woke up to the federalist nature of the EU, many people have wanted out and governments have had to keep negotiating between the EU and it's own parliaments to strike a different way for the UK in Europe to the rest of the members. It is a farce when looked at in that light fighting to stay in club where we won't obey the ruiles or pay the full membership fee - hence my earlier comparison to joining a cycling club, but always turning up with walking sticks and hiking boots.

We can live in partnership with Europe, but not in the same house. We can negotiate trade and take back control for negotiating trade with other countries. We can have partnership in science - look at Cern, whee the world wide web was created and the higgs bosun was discovered - that is a partnership between EU and non-EU countries. It's main site actually crosses the French - Swiss border.

Climate and the environment still require partnership working, but they are global, not European issues as is the movement of refugees.

We will still be in the UN, the European Court of Human Rights, NATO and probably many other alliances. Every EU law currently on the staute books will still be in place when we leave, it is a process of negotiation as to what we keep and what we leave behind.

bendertherobot

Maastricht was an interesting time for democracy mind.............

mrfpb

coriordan wrote:

Gents, this is actually making for very good reading and further strengthening my "in" resolve. The ones which is harder to debate is the law making process.

How does it work in practice and what "control" do we have/gain/ lose from the unelected bureaucrats for voting out.

Also what about the money wastage in Brussels, lack of financial accountability, lack of filed accounts for years?

Also what about the long term aims of EU -> fiscal/monetary union / EU superstate?

Bender gave a pretty good summary of the law making process. The EU budget is as Bender described, audited. Most of the EU budget is effectively spent on the central projects it supports. The main disputed issue is how the administrative side of the budget is spent - expenses for members, commissioners etc.These are not as transparent as they could be - biut ours weren't before the expenses scandal. The admin budget is 6% of the overall budget. There is a great deal of inefficiency, and there is some effort to get on top of this. The one glaring sore thumb of an issues is having two parliaments - one where laws are written and another in another country where MEPS vote and every month every member of staff and every piece of confidential paper is moved at great expense between the two.

You have to consider if there is a need for any beauracracy. Pesoanll I think there is such a thing as good bureaucracy - anything that helps the front line get the job done. A good example would be customer services at your favourite online bike shop. Well wotrth the money the company spends on it. Does the EU have good beauracracy?

Discuss

bendertherobot

It's a fair point. Mind, taken to its ultimate conclusion it also raises the issue of whether the devolved administrations offers similar poor value (and that will only be exacerbated once section 2(2) is repealed).

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Come on Goo.

Tell me how I've changed your country.

You wouldn't even know I was an EU immigrant unless I told you. Chances are I speak better English than you do, and I probably pay more tax than you do too.

Tell me how I've ruined it. Tell me why I ought to not be here.

You can say the same to my mother too, who has taught scores of British University students over the past 25 years.

Come on. Let's here it. Why am I so bad?

I thought the UK has a reputation for being a leading light of liberty and tolerance. You can be who you want to be, as long as you are accepting of everyone else.

The UK used to pride itself on guardians of open mindedness and inclusiveness. You're many things Goo, but you're not an embodiment of that.

So let's here why me, the EU migrant, is so bloody awful.

Coming over here and telling us what we can or can't say on our forum; depriving some poor Brit from a council estate getting a place at Cambridge; taking our employees and finding them new, better paid jobs. It's your sort that have stopped Britain being great.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Gents, this is actually making for very good reading and further strengthening my "in" resolve. The ones which is harder to debate is the law making process.

How does it work in practice and what "control" do we have/gain/ lose from the unelected bureaucrats for voting out.

Also what about the money wastage in Brussels, lack of financial accountability, lack of filed accounts for years?

Also what about the long term aims of EU -> fiscal/monetary union / EU superstate?

Bender gave a pretty good summary of the law making process. The EU budget is as Bender described, audited. Most of the EU budget is effectively spent on the central projects it supports. The main disputed issue is how the administrative side of the budget is spent - expenses for members, commissioners etc.These are not as transparent as they could be - biut ours weren't before the expenses scandal. The admin budget is 6% of the overall budget. There is a great deal of inefficiency, and there is some effort to get on top of this. The one glaring sore thumb of an issues is having two parliaments - one where laws are written and another in another country where MEPS vote and every month every member of staff and every piece of confidential paper is moved at great expense between the two.

You have to consider if there is a need for any beauracracy. Pesoanll I think there is such a thing as good bureaucracy - anything that helps the front line get the job done. A good example would be customer services at your favourite online bike shop. Well wotrth the money the company spends on it. Does the EU have good beauracracy?

Discuss

mrfp - am I right that you are voting out due to a lack of democratic accountability? If so how do you see this negatively affecting you/UK?

As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.

bendertherobot

There really are some potentially fascinating post Brexit things to think about. Take Environmental Law. Pretty much completely devolved. Wales could, for example, continue to take a lead from the EU (subject to whatever replaces section 2(2)) and make tougher laws than in England. Would make the regulatory burden cross border a bit of a quandary.

Another fascinating area, touched on by the NY Times, and I've yet to see anyone mention it,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/world ... rexit.html

touches on Democracy and Sovereignty. And how they work. We've elected MP's and each of them is a proxy for us. But, the majority of the time, we let them loose to do what they believe in, in our name. If the majority conscience is in favour of remain, how will any legislation that forces us out get through? Now, you might argue that each constituency result will force them to do/not do what is required. But these are special circumstances. It could throw up some weirdness given that constituencies are not proportional to each other.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Pross wrote:

I have to say mrfpb has made the most coherent case I've heard or read for leaving. I still think it's too optimistic and too big a gamble but at least it's reasoned and considers both sides.

Thanks, I think the standard of debate has been quite high on this thread compared to the public debate, but it has taken some effort on both sides (and a bit of moderating) to keep it that way.

Agreed with all of the above.

Appreciate the answer above and it is always best online to not be too specific. As somebody who has prospered in a multicultural UK , as part of the EU, why are you voting out?

I have avoided the multicultural/immigration debate in my posts up to now, because I don't give it the significance that most Leave campaigners do. we were a multicultural nation (albeit with a side order of ugly racism) for decades before we joined the EU. Little known fact - we elected our first Asian MP in 1892.



The EU is a little undemocratic in it's institutions but worse than that has anti-democratic attitudes to it's member states. For example the Greek finance minister was excluded from some talks on the Greek Euro bailout because his party was elected on an anti-austerity platform opposed to the EU plan.


We can live in partnership with Europe, but not in the same house. We can negotiate trade and take back control for negotiating trade with other countries. We can have partnership in science - look at Cern, whee the world wide web was created and the higgs bosun was discovered - that is a partnership between EU and non-EU countries. It's main site actually crosses the French - Swiss border.

Good to hear there is no need to discuss immigration. I have a low opinion of our democracy so am not that bothered at ceding powers to somebody else.

My understanding was that Yanis was excluded, at the request of the Eurogroup, by his own party as his behaviour was not conducive to getting a deal. The real lesson here is how they negotiate. Yanis considered himself a master and was playing what he considered to be a strong hand.... Ie he was so mad he would bankrupt Greece and take the european banking system with him therefore it was cheaper to bail Greece out. He rejected the last and final offer and held a referendum ( bizarrely after the offer had expired) in which the Greek public rejected a deal which was no longer on offer. The Greeks took this new mandate as a strengthening of their hand and went to renegotiate. They left with far worse deal.

Now who can spot the similarities.

My attitude to debt is that if you borrow it is your responsibility to pay it back so I have no issue with the way the EU acted.

bendertherobot

Just adding to the above, anyone interested have a google of Brexit Devolution. Really interesting stuff. The cost to the economy in lawyers fees probably out weighs the saving!

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

There really are some potentially fascinating post Brexit things to think about. Take Environmental Law. Pretty much completely devolved. Wales could, for example, continue to take a lead from the EU (subject to whatever replaces section 2(2)) and make tougher laws than in England. Would make the regulatory burden cross border a bit of a quandary.

Another fascinating area, touched on by the NY Times, and I've yet to see anyone mention it,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/world ... rexit.html

touches on Democracy and Sovereignty. And how they work. We've elected MP's and each of them is a proxy for us. But, the majority of the time, we let them loose to do what they believe in, in our name. If the majority conscience is in favour of remain, how will any legislation that forces us out get through? Now, you might argue that each constituency result will force them to do/not do what is required. But these are special circumstances. It could throw up some weirdness given that constituencies are not proportional to each other.

I love the diversity of expertise on this cycling forum

bendertherobot

To be fair I've worked in Government and drafted EU related legislation 8)

orraloon

Trouble is, judging by the level of spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence construction, discussion and argument on this forum, we don't represent the knuckle-draggers who seem to be buying the "it's all immigrants wots to blame" BS being peddled ruthlessly.

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfp - am I right that you are voting out due to a lack of democratic accountability? If so how do you see this negatively affecting you/UK?As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.

I think we have got to the point where we essentially disagree and will continue to disagree. We have looked at and shared quite a lot of information here, but ultimately we have chosen differently. I don't think there is an argument I can add to what has gone before to make my position any clearer.

cycleclinic

also it is not just in deprived areas that leave have votes. in many rural areas and in towns many middle claas voters support leave. it is no co insidence that the leave vote has such support now. there are many people who are quite comfortable ecomonically so they think it does not matter much to us if there is an economic shock we can whether it go gain "control/2

The only two arguments i would make now mrfpb are 1) the control many people in u.k want is an illusion. Ultimately immigration levels are dictated by economic reality. while for a short while we could reduce immigration levels we also have an aging population and at some point we have have to let the numbers rise again. The amount of immigration we have at present (working age people mostly) is not holding the dependency ratio down. the dependency ratio is the number of under 15's and over 64's to the working age population. You can see why higher is not good for the public purse.
In 2011 it was 52% and in 2015 it was 55% according to the world bank data. cut immigration it will rise faster and the pensions bill will have to be cut. Pensioners voting for leave I don't think realise that.

2) Cameron actually won something important in the renegotiation. It is a technical concession and not on immigration.
First of all the ever closer union no longer applies to use. This now establish the variable speed europe firmly. Other non euro countries may try to get this for themselves like Denmark or Sweeden. Second the now a non euro countries can club together to stop the Euro countries which have a majority of votes pushing through changes that will affect non euro countries in terms of bailout e.t.c This is something the federalist hate as it means the non euro countires can resist further integration.
A multi speed europe is now firmly established. Once all members once would move together to ever closer union. Now the destination of members is not even the same and the level of integration varies alot.

These technicalities are lost in the "debate" as the politicians think the public and news papers are too thick to appreciate it.

The E.U is an evolving organisation and it will evolve again in the face of the challenges it now faces. right/left wing populist parties are on the rise in every country and this is a challenge that will require a different kind of union. If we stay in we get to shape it. If we vote out the EU member states will decide for themselves how the EU evolves and those changes will affect us alot. The leave camp portray the E.U as a static monolithic organisation hell bend on one thing. This has never been true in the history of the EU.

Pross

I think the problem is that most people make their mind up on pre-conceptions or what they've been fed by the media over years and then just cherry pick the parts of the debate that back this opinion. I suspect even among most of us on here where there's been very good debating on both sides many of us are guilty of this.

mrfpb

thecycleclinic wrote:

Ultimately immigration levels are dictated by economic reality. while for a short while we could reduce immigration levels we also have an aging population and at some point we have have to let the numbers rise again. The amount of immigration we have at present (working age people mostly) is not holding the dependency ratio down. the dependency ratio is the number of under 15's and over 64's to the working age population. You can see why higher is not good for the public purse. In 2011 it was 52% and in 2015 it was 55% according to the world bank data. cut immigration it will rise faster and the pensions bill will have to be cut. Pensioners voting for leave I don't think realise that.

There was a debate on the affordability of public sector pensions a few years ago and someone put forward the argument that we should employ lots more people in the public sector as they would put in contributions to cover the gap. The person who put forward the argument wasn't being serious. Do you see the faulty logic there.

Your argument depends on immigrants coming and working, but not bringing their children (or having children) and leaving before they hit pension age. Doesn't that imply a level of control that the EU would never allow? That an independent UK would never allow? The care bill for the elderly is a massive issue and is not solved by hitching it to the immigration debate.

As I mentioned earlier my parents were immigrants from Ireland, they have retired back home where they draw the UK pensions they contributed to for so many years. My mum also has a very small US pension as she lived and worked there for a few years before moving on to the UK. So we are in the same place we were with public sector pensions.

mrfpb

On a practical note, my postal vote says it has to arrive at my local council office before close of polls on Thursday. I haven't seen any news about a "period of grace" so if anyone's posting their vote get it in quick.

mr_goo

Joelsim wrote:

Goo's beloved finance sector will be moving to Frankfurt should we vote Leave, so he'd better get his visa application in.

Why do I need a visa?

mr_goo

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I guess my analogy here would be. A house is made of bricks and mortar with a roof. The roof being this wonderful utopian financial and banking system which is the Remain campaigns' main reason for staying in. Take away the individual bricks, fishing industry, steel etc etc, then you don't have a house to put a roof on.

That makes more sense. Rather than pouring billions into propping up legacy industries it may be more productive to use the money to invest in new industries and/or re-skilling the workers.

So, to use the same analogy you would replace old crumbling bricks with new stronger ones.

Not necessarily.
Define stronger industries please. If you are going down the 8l00dy finance and banking industry route. Please don't bother explaining.

cycleclinic

mrfpb Overall immigration into the U.K holds down the dependency ratio as most come to work. They do have kids but those children grow up to be tax payers quite quickly and then are tax payers for 50 years. So there is a net gain for us in workers and taxes. My logic is not faulty at all. Reducing immigration will allow our population to age faster than it would otherwise. That is a social change by the way that will be transformative for us. We have the choice of social change through immigration and population that ages at a manageable rate (although the higher population means more money has to be spent on housing, infrastructure services e,t,c but there is also the tax base to do that) or lower immigration and a population that ages far quicker. That by the way will put increasing pressure on public services (but without the tax base to support it) and the pensions bill because it is the older folk who draw on public services the most.

the referendum should be framed this way really as that is the choice as I see and demographers see it. It is not a great choice but it is the choice we have. Either way big changes to our society will happen. However the leave route leaves us with a hobson's choice in about 20 years if immigration levels are held down in that time.

The other solution is to somehow get native born britains to have more children but there are no tax incentives or social programmes that can increase the birth rate. All rich nations suffer from the same problem declining birth rates and an again population. As people get richer and infant mortality decreases the need for many children simply goes. so if we get poorer and infant mortality rises then we british will have more children and the need for immigration goes. That is not a society that I want to see.

Do you accept reality as it is or as you want it to be? I think this is what seperates in and leave voters.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stuf

stuff

other stuff

I seem to have been defending someone else's words as my own. Apologies to Coopster and Rick

I answered Goo in a very civilised manner but got a rant about fishing - would you mind answering

I'm not sure I 'ranted' about fishing industry Mr Surrey Commuter.
As you have an economics degree, which I am sure would have involved looking at contributors to a state's economy, I wanted an explanation and your views on why you think being an EU member is beneficial to the UK Fishing fleet.

Most plebs like me know that the UK Fishing industry has been decimated by the EU. Yet it is something that the Remain campaign do not want to engage in dialogue. They merely send out a multi millionaire pop star come self proclaimed saviour of the 3rd world to slag off the fishermen.

FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.

OK have just found figures from 24th September 2015 and the UK fishing industry is worth £861,000,000. Whilst that is important to the 11,800 people working in that industry it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. The UK economy is worth nearly £3,000,000,000,000, which I think is 0.03%.

You may hate "the city" but they are the ones who fund everything

I guess my analogy here would be. A house is made of bricks and mortar with a roof. The roof being this wonderful utopian financial and banking system which is the Remain campaigns' main reason for staying in. Take away the individual bricks, fishing industry, steel etc etc, then you don't have a house to put a roof on.

That makes more sense. Rather than pouring billions into propping up legacy industries it may be more productive to use the money to invest in new industries and/or re-skilling the workers.

Therefore are you defining every industry that is not finance, banking and commerce centric a 'legacy industry'.
For example, the UK has a thriving micro brewing industry, which was heralded by the Rt Hon D Cameron during the week. We've brewed beer and ales for centuries. Your statement indicates that it should be abandoned and the treasury should stop propping this us with reductions in alcohol duty and wack on 50pence and kill it off.

mr_goo

Rick

Cannot find your original post in response to my remarks about immigration. At no point I believe did I actually point a finger at you and threaten to send the boot boys around to knock down your door? And what the f**k has speaking the Queen's English got to do with your argument.

So perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. The speed at which migration has taken place across the UK and Europe in the last couple of decades, particularly to the founding states of the now EU, has outstripped the capacity to cope with their impact. Therefore it is bound to have changed the demographic makeup of thousands of villages, towns and cities. Many indigenous residents (including older generation immigrants) may feel that their services are diminished due to resources being diverted to cope with the new arrivals be they from Eastern Europe or from those fleeing conflict. Certainly the mass influx into Germany will only serve to ferment a rise in 'right wing' activism and this should come as no surprise to anyone.

There is no denying that basic infrastructure services within the UK are pretty much stretched and in some cases broken. I concede that some of this will be down to the ageing population. But surely common sense would dictate that putting a brake (not stop) on non organic population growth would be sensible, until such time as services can cope adequately.

Queue the put downs.

cycleclinic

the point is though Mr Goo. Demographic changes will happen with or without immigration. An rapidly aging population is just as damaging but in different ways. Also being able to cope is a subjective term. Some people cope quite well with the changes we have seen. I am one of them.

Please look at the demographic data it is quite telling.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As you may have guessed with me it is all about the economy and really struggle to comprehend people voting for other reasons. Everything else follows from the strength of the economy.

As it is topical today, if it was all about the economics we would never have gone to space or put a man on the moon. Taking the financial view that was and still is a stupid idea but it represents progress

When you consider everything by being financially better off you can miss the wider view

cycleclinic

yes we would the ecomonic spinoff's from the apollo programe have been vast far exceeding the cost.. The same goes for the space programe in general. Satellite telly anyone? There are big economic gains from putting people in space. The payback happens though over time. All scientific research overall leads to payback. it is a myth to suggest otherwise.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick

Cannot find your original post in response to my remarks about immigration. At no point I believe did I actually point a finger at you and threaten to send the boot boys around to knock down your door? And what the f**k has speaking the Queen's English got to do with your argument.

So perhaps I should clarify my thoughts. The speed at which migration has taken place across the UK and Europe in the last couple of decades, particularly to the founding states of the now EU, has outstripped the capacity to cope with their impact. Therefore it is bound to have changed the demographic makeup of thousands of villages, towns and cities. Many indigenous residents (including older generation immigrants) may feel that their services are diminished due to resources being diverted to cope with the new arrivals be they from Eastern Europe or from those fleeing conflict. Certainly the mass influx into Germany will only serve to ferment a rise in 'right wing' activism and this should come as no surprise to anyone.

There is no denying that basic infrastructure services within the UK are pretty much stretched and in some cases broken. I concede that some of this will be down to the ageing population. But surely common sense would dictate that putting a brake (not stop) on non organic population growth would be sensible, until such time as services can cope adequately.

Queue the put downs.

Let me get this right. In a situation where the heads of public services are concerned about the adverse impact of Brexit on their ability to recruit, you think the solution is to limit the pool in which they can recruit from?

Has it occurred to people that shrinking public services has coincided with the biggest reduction in state spending on public services since 1930??

Has it occurred to anyone that while economists and industrialists have been complaining for 30 years that there is not enough investment in public infrastructure to keep up with future demand?

Has it not occurred to anyone that the vast majority of migration creates wealth and jobs?

It's curious you refer to Eastern European immigrants. Why make the distinction between them and me?