1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by FrenchTart, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. tamzzy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 26, 2012

    Posts: 9,997

    stop all benefits.
    reopen workhouses.
    everyone will earn their way in life.
    no exceptions.

    #brexitdream
     
  2. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    The Romans and Norman's did very little to change the long term demographics of what is now the UK.

    The Norman's essentially replaced a small section of society (the elite..
    The '1%`- with a legacy that persists even today....
    I don't see Oxford and Cambridge worrying about their under admission of Anglo Saxon students strangely enough... ).

    The Romans, whilst they occupied the island, comprised a reasonable percentage of the men present (4 - 8%) but most of these numbers would have been in the legions whoose members would only occasionally end up settling in the UK with most of the legions returning abroad at the end of their service.

    Even today men with 'Roman' ancestry potentially make up as litle as 1/30 of the male population of the UK having had over 1500 years for the genes to spread through the UK gene pool after the Romans were in the UK for 367 years!


    Regardless the Norman's, Vikings and Romans coming to these Isles were all called 'invasions'.... I. E people coming here against the will of the existing people and stealing stuff from the existing occupants. All three were also rather destructive to the societies and cultures they invaded and often almost totally surplanted them at least locally with the 'natives' having to get with the (new) program.

    Whilst the empire meant some non British people entered the UK (mostly via port towns and cities) it is a total disengenious lie to claim that the numbers, as proportion of the existing population at the time, were anything like the numbers we have seen since the 1950's onwards and particularly since the late 1990's

    Its a total lie to infer that recent migration into the UK represented 'business as usual' and that we have always been a 'nation of immigrants' to anything like the extent we have seen in recent decades.

     
  3. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,143

    Are you clear how this relates to Brexit?

    You talk about "over-population" and then look at whether people are contributing enough.

    As you well know, the average immigrant is a contributor to the UK.

    The average Brexiteer is a taker.

    Where would you put the threshold on net contribution below which you would get rid of people?
     
  4. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,782

    What is the positive case for Brexit for the UK overall ?

    Why is no one explaining this ?
     
  5. tamzzy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 26, 2012

    Posts: 9,997

    you just need to have faith.
     
  6. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,782

    So under this scheme it will get much worse. Is this a smart idea? In my lifetime we had an episode where oil was all but stopped and you had cars searching for fuel. What would happen if grain stopped? Also, as mentioned, all this costs. More imports means more borrowing and debt servicing. This means less for Govt to spend. What will be lost? The NHS? Less for disabled, sick?
     
  7. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,782

    I have faith, I truly believe this is going to be a cluster****.:p
     
  8. tamzzy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 26, 2012

    Posts: 9,997

    nothing will be lost.
    stop all benefits.
    reopen workhouses.
    everyone will earn their way in life.
    plebs that don't want to work or cannot work will be culled.
    no exceptions.

    #brexitdream

    wrong kind of faith.

    #brexitfaith
     
  9. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,782

    Cull all those with the wrong kind of faith:p:p That is going further back than JRM's workhouse.
     
  10. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,782

    Proper Planning and Practice Prevents **** Poor Performance.

    Except we did no planning let alone proper planning, we are winging it.
    Muddled what we want in practice.

    Inevitably leads to ...
     
  11. ron3003

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 25, 2006

    Posts: 1,464

    Location: Skegness

    We do actually export via Boston large quantities of the grain we grow here in this country. Much of it to Russia.
     
  12. tamzzy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 26, 2012

    Posts: 9,997

    cull the weak
    cull the poor
    cull the infirm
    cull the elderly
    cull everyone who doesn't believe in the #brexitdream

    #solvingoverpopulation
    #masterrace
     
  13. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,782

    The most profitable grain due to productivity is wheat. Lose that to lower cost exporters like the US etc. and that is a lot of imports. Brexiteers economist Minford even states agriculture will crash. No Govt in their right mind puts food security at risk. (Guess this lot would do it though)

    http://www.nabim.org.uk/imports-and-exports
     
  14. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,487

    Location: Back in East London

    It's quite popular in some places. Dagenham and surrounding districts have quite a number of flag poles (most makeshift like fishing poles or a bit of nicked scaffold strapped to sheds or something but the odd actual pole) in gardens. Usually with a west ham flag, then a St George. In that order pretty much always.
     
  15. Rilot

    Don

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,465

    Location: Wargrave, UK

    That article on immigration numbers is interesting. I will point out this part though:

    6. The largest source of net migration remains from countries outside the European Union, something over which the government has immediate control

    Brexit isn't going to fix this. We have the ability to stop immigration from outside the EU but choose not to.
     
  16. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581


    Its been explained to you repeatedly you are seemingly just incapable of listening and/ or comprehending.



    Personally I have no issue thinking off a list of positive and negative cases for both remaining in and leaving the EU...……….



    But just for you ill provide a (non exhaustive) list of positive reasons to consider that leaving the EU may be a good thing for the UK


    * The ability to have direct control over people who are immigrating to the UK for work purposes. Currently anyone from the EU can come to the UK and work in any sector regardless as to whether there is a skill shortage or not. Evidence suggests EU migration has suppressed pay for the lowest paid workers in the UK

    If we had control of our borders we could still incentivise the high skilled workers to come to the UK (from the whole world not just the EU) whilst potentially not doing this at the expense of the poorest paid in society with the least skills who find themselves competing with low skilled imports or higher skilled imports willing to work low paid jobs at their expense.


    * Having control of out borders means the UK can better plan for our future. The estimations of central and eastern European migrants likely to come into the UK were out by a factor of around 20. In the EU we have no power to increase or decrease the flow of immigrants based on the needs of the UK rather we have to pretty much take all wishing to come.



    * Outside of the EU we can implement laws and economic policies that are a better fit for the UK rather then whatever comprise is hammered out for the all the EU states (or at least some of its more powerful members)


    * The EU is committed to an ever closer union of its peoples and members. David Cameron secured a symbolic withdraw from this declaration for the UK. But how would the UK fare as the odd one out and is it really in the best interests or wishes of most Europeans to be in a United States of Europe?


    * The EU adds an extra layer of expensive bureaucracy on to of national governments. The EU setup is complicated, MEP's cant initiate legislation and votes get pushed through parliaments where most or even all of one nations MEP's have rejected it.

    For example with the recent Copyright directive all MEP's present from two countries voted against the final adoption and for changes to be made. In others there was a strong majority against it (for example Sweden where 15 voted against final adoption and for changes to be made vs 3 the other way around.)


    * To attract global businesses to set up new offices and job in the UK we would be free to set up tax incentives and would be free to set corporation tax and VAT rates to suit the UK not the EU as a whole.


    * The UK government would once again be Sovereign..... which it isn't when domestic legislation must be 'disapplied' if it conflicts with EU law


    * Outside of the EU the UK is less constricted if it wishes to nationalise industries if it is deemed a good idea (despite being a strong opponent of socialism even I think certain industries could be run best under state control)


    * Even with the UK outside of EU both could still benefit from being in a customs union with free trade if both parties agreed (after all the EU and Turkey have this sort of agreement)



    * Outside of the EU we are further insulated from downsides of the inherent flaws in the Euro currency (Monetary union without proper fiscal/economic and political union) and any future 'bailouts' that may be required for other nations


    * Which ever way you cut it we are still a net contributor to the EU and we can cut this figure if we leave


    * some of the most deprived area of the UK could take back contol of key industries - Take fishing in areas like Cornwall, and coastal towns in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.

     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  17. Caracus2k

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 4,581

    Well I don't disagree and the likelihood that a UK parliament would not make, what I beleive to be, better decisions than the EU was one of the main reasons I voted remain in 2016.

    Regardless when it comes to work non EU migrants still have to meet the approval of the UK requirements (even when not for work there are restricitions for spouses for example) so we have more control over non EU migrants even if net numbers are higher than EU migrants.
     
  18. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,782

    Thanks for the long response. Basically what your are saying is the reason for leaving the EU is immigration, laws and sovereignty. Also to improve security, avoid bureaucracy and avoid the euro which the UK has an opt out from.

    The UK police, border agencies and security services repeatedly explained losing access and key legal rights to EU security systems means reducing UK security and increases cost / bureaucracy.

    Can you explain how brexit benefits the manufacturing sector when the UK leaves the single market and customs union onto WTO terms, this would help explain why you think EU membership is a net economic loss to the UK, how leaving reduces bureaucracy in this case and how investment in UK manufacturing will thrive due to brexit ?

    Can you explain which EU law has caused significant economic damage to the UK, to be fair no one ever answers that question?

    Immigration in some sectors has reduced wages slightly but overall has had no negative effect on wages. The employment rights such as minimum wage in the UK are down to UK national governments.Recently due to a lack of EU immigration the construction, agriculture and public sector such the NHS have had problems recruiting Causing a wide variety of problems. EU migration when welfare payments are removed from tax gives a net benefit of £13.5bn. Why is stopping this a benefit of brexit as it is down to UK national governments and has financially benefited the UK ?

    The above is what I don’t understand about brexit in terms of it being an overall benefit to the UK. Especially when senior figures in all sectors of the economy , trade unions, submissions to select committees and government studies explain how economically damaging brexit is. You would think if brexit was such a benefit they would be campaigning strongly for brexit of some form. What I need to understand are the positives in real life detail.

    * A quick addition you may not be aware of but the UK fishing rights are largely foreign owned and leaving the EU makes no difference to this.
     
  19. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 12,107

    Location: Hertfordshire

    None of that matters, people just don't want a load of eastern Europeans in their town.
     
  20. tamzzy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 26, 2012

    Posts: 9,997

    chinese, japanese, indians, pakistanis are okay though :)

    just not the eastern europeans.

    #brexitdream