Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I always think there is something a little racist in this type of comment. England is more ethnically diverse than other parts of the union. If we take Leicester a city with a minority white (Little Englander?) population, it voted for Brexit. England includes inner city slums, rural poverty, affluent suburbia, posh villages, and people from a wide range of cultural and national backgrounds. Mr Singh running the village shop is probably a little Englander. Is Gisela Stuart (good Scottish name there) a little Englander?

You seem to be mistaking Little Englander for a synonym for English person. It is not.

Gisela Stuart funnily strikes me as pretty much what I am talking about though not quite the archetype.

There are very few of them in inner cities. Their natural heartland is far more rural.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There's nothing to stop EU people still coming here after Brexit, providing they still want to and they have the skills that we want.

Yes there is. People like you driving Tory immigration policy for a start.

 

[Planigale]

You seem to be mistaking Little Englander for a synonym for English person. It is not.

Gisela Stuart funnily strikes me as pretty much what I am talking about though not quite the archetype.

There are very few of them in inner cities. Their natural heartland is far more rural.

OK I guess Germans can be little Englanders (since the current monarchy is essentially Scottish / German).

Since England has a very urban population, Brexit could not have won without getting a substantial urban support. There is no value in a fantasy that a rural middle class white anglican clique somehow was a UK majority. The reality is Brexit had to get widespread support to win. This included non white, non christian, non rural, working class voters.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't need evidence for self-evident truths.

What's the flaw in my Canada argument? If you can't point to a flaw, and I know you can't, then you're basically just waffling to cover up the fact that you know I'm right but you don't want to admit it.

The flaw is that UK can control non EU immigration but does not do it. You never addressed that one.

 

[Aepervius]

The flood will continue, it will simply reverse direction.

Meanwhile, you will suddenly have a dearth of builders, plumbers, electricians, skilled artisans of all type, so those costs will inevitably rise.

In there, you will have removed none of the brown people to whom you so object. They remain. Brexit makes no difference to them. They will remain in racist Britain and continue to flood in. Britain is simply reaping the reward of decades of exploitation of those very same brown people. The British empire? It is to laugh.

But no dearth of picker , low paid job. The UK government already said they are considering solution to that problem, and it will probably to continue to allow those dirty seasonal EU people come to UK to pick up stuff.

Baring that expect all your vegetable and fruit to take a big hike.

 

[ceptimus]

The flaw is that UK can control non EU immigration but does not do it. You never addressed that one.

But it does. In fact it has to over control non EU immigration to try to make up for the uncontrolled EU immigration. Witness the people in this thread moaning about us not letting enough Aussies in.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, the Govt are blocking translators and other Afghan nationals that worked alongside British Forces at risk to their own life from coming to the country. They can just stay where they are and be killed by the Taliban.
Forget the debt of honour owed to them or the fact that the army will find it difficult to recruit locals next time we invade someone if they think they will be abandoned. They are brown foreigners and an easy target to keep out.

 

[Aepervius]

But it does. In fact it has to over control non EU immigration to try to make up for the uncontrolled EU immigration. Witness the people in this thread moaning about us not letting enough Aussies in.

No it does not really do it. Otherwise there would not be 290K non EU migrant each year, including non skilled. (heck the net EU flow is only 190K vs 195K the rest ; December 2016 ONS numbers : net migration = +335,000 (similar to YE June 2015), comprising +189,000 EU citizens, +196,000 non-EU citizens and -49,000 British citizens).

It could reduce it drastically, but does not do it. That is why the pretension that UK needs to reduce EU migration are a fallacy. If it was that much a problem the non EU flow would be the first to take a hit. But while it reduced proportionally to EU, there was not really that much restriction added in the last what , 2 decades ?

Furthermore the UK as you keep pointing out do a lot of exchange with the EU, on trade goods, services, and yes passporting right for financial institutions.

You would expect that there would be a lot of going around with your major trade partner.

Again, the impact estimated by unskilled folk on the UK economy has been estimated as very low , less than 1 % as cited by study up-thread, that you will undoubtedly reject.

Furthermore it seems the EU migration are rather younger folk, tax paying, and consuming. They are not the one filling your hospitals, or putting the service to test. The one doing that are your own government deciding quite strange things in the last decade (wasn't there a change to have doctor/hospital competing for finance ?), and simple demographic that the UK population is aging.

And.... That is why the things about EU migration is BS.

 

[MCel58]

You seem to be mistaking arguments over politics with discussions about science. I've given perfectly good evidence for my claims in a political forum. If you want the sort of evidence that demands measurement units, graphs, hypotheses and experiments then you need to head over to the science forum.

How would you propose that I prove that what is good for Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand (insert names of all non-EU countries here) is also good for the UK?

The way I propose, is what we're doing. We're leaving the EU, taking control over currently uncontrolled EU migration, and then having controlled migration from the whole world.

Unfortunately it will be a few years before we get the results of the experiment - and even then it will be open to interpretation because of the confounding influence of other factors.

I can take comfort in the fact that my argument is obviously right - and that is why the rest of the world is already doing what I propose.

You can continue in your misguided belief that the EU is doing it right and the rest of the world is wrong. It doesn't bother me if that's what you wish to believe.

I suggest that you read the text of the trade deal being done with Canada and the EU. Whilst it is not complete freedom of movement the Canadians have had to accept temporary freedom of movement for people with professional qualifications, plus recognition of EU qualifications, plus the opening up of their public procurement tenders to EU companies, plus EU patent laws and recognition of EU food and REACH standards and the staff of any company that is setting up in Canada as part of the deal have the right to temporarily move to Canada. Every trade deal will come with some conditions on immigration and other things. It looks like it will finally pass this week.

 

[MCel58]

When the chancellor of the exchequer, and a previous chancellor get together on a platform and tell you that in the days immediately following a leave vote an emergency tax raising budget will be held.

And then there is no emergency budget.

Now remain supporters can claim this was not a lie. But if they do then it shows that they don't understand the English language.

Actually this was based on putting down Article 50 immediately which we have not done. I think we may want to see if we need an emergency tax budget post March before you start claiming it was a lie.

 

[MCel58]

We do have unskilled migrants from the EU entering right now. Not a lie.

While we're being flooded with migrants and there aren't enough houses and services for everyone, we have to get tough on immigration that we can control to stem the flood. Not a lie.

We can't stop the EU flood for at least another two years while we're still EU members. Not a lie.

Just because you don't agree with someone, it doesn't mean they're lying. You need to do better than that and actually back up your accusations with facts.

Your first is not a lie because you have qualified with at present but everything that is being told about post Brexit immigration may make it into one.
No 2 is a lie, there are enough houses, the issue is not the number but the number of affordable housing and the majority of EU immigrants are net contributors of the income necessary for services not net beneficiaries. The major net beneficiaries are in fact UK born elderly citizens.
Yes a lie as it is not a flood, it is necessary immigration in order to keep any semblance of economic growth. The UK needs immigration for a steady workforce in almost every sector and to pay taxes and NI and if we do not have immigration at at least current levels then the tax bill for the rest of the population will have to go up. Without at least present levels of immigration our services will crack because of the lack of money in the system created by our demographic problems which are not short term they are an increasing economic factor for the next 20+ years.

 

[The Don]

Actually this was based on putting down Article 50 immediately which we have not done. I think we may want to see if we need an emergency tax budget post March before you start claiming it was a lie.

We may or we may not.

In order to stop growth in the UK economy grinding to a halt or even reversing following the Brexit vote the government and Bank of England pumped £170bn of stimulus money in and abandoned the attempts to balance the budget which brought in "austerity" (which was one of the major factors resulting in a shortage of local services which was blamed on immigrants by the Leave campaign). All of a sudden the £120bn black hole resulting from Brexit didn't need to be filled with a combination of tax rises and spending cuts (both of which would have acted as a significant brake on the UK economy) and the money could simply be added to the UK national debt.

Personally if such largesse were possible I would have preferred that money to have been made available to fund local services, bolster the NHS or best yet to invest in the national infrastructure rather than to try and mitigate the economic consequences of the, IMO foolish, decision to undertake a "diamond" Brexit.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

OK I guess Germans can be little Englanders (since the current monarchy is essentially Scottish / German).

Since England has a very urban population, Brexit could not have won without getting a substantial urban support. There is no value in a fantasy that a rural middle class white anglican clique somehow was a UK majority. The reality is Brexit had to get widespread support to win. This included non white, non christian, non rural, working class voters.

I have never said that all Brexit voters were Little Englanders. When I talk about them I am talking about a specific subset. But there are plenty in urban areas too. They just tend to be few of them in the middle of big cities proportionally.

Some people who voted were more your BNP EDL NF types. These are not Little Englanders typically. They are just your outright racists.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But it does. In fact it has to over control non EU immigration to try to make up for the uncontrolled EU immigration. Witness the people in this thread moaning about us not letting enough Aussies in.

You mistake chooses to with has to? Again. Another lie. Is that ten now?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If the case against freer immigration is so strong you do wonder why just about everything used to make the case is a lie or gross exaggeration.

If you have a case then use the facts. If you don't have the facts then why insist on the point? It's almost as if the facts are irrelevant and all that matters is 'foreigners bad stealing our copper'

 

[Aepervius]

If the UK was doing that much to stop non EU migration, you would see it take a dive.

But it does not. In fact net EU and non EU immigration rose *parallel* to the each other. Keep in mind EU immigration is quasi "free" to do whatever.

Source : https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph

ETA: I mislabelled the picture, just ignore the picture name. Look at the blue picture you get the gist of what I mean by less restriction, look at that 2004 peak (2000-2008) !

 

[Aepervius]

If the UK had so much difficulty restricting immigration you would see during that 2000+ period a dive of the non EU migration, but it still rose then stayed semi constant except during the 2012 toward the peak of the economic crisis.

 

[Greebo]

You're wilfully missing the point. Uncontrolled migration from the EU may be a net benefit to the UK. My argument is that controlled migration from the whole world (including the EU) would obviously result in an even greater benefit.

This sounds like the reasoning my MP gave when I challenged him on his opinion (leave). Full of unsupported assertations, coulds, shoulds and possibilities. In other words - no facts.

 

[McHrozni]

The power of the Lords will not be broken so easily it seems.

http://www.bloombergquint.com/polit...g-set-to-be-changed-by-upper-house-davis-says

There will be amendments and the Commons will have to vote again. Various Brexitards are already advocating to destroy the House of Lords if they frustrate the progress of Brexit (which has been in neutral without them for about 8 months). Does anyone know what kind of amendments will they put in maybe?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Chancellor: "I will hold an emergency budget in the days immediately following a leave vote."

* didn't *

Remainers: "That wasn't a lie because...."

You couldn't make this stuff up.

How could he?