If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

there weren't enough jobs for the people of the UK but I'm glad that migrants did well

UK people were not excluded for applying, as far as I remember.

do the economies of scale apply to exports to pay for the increase in imports.

Yes.

do economies of scale result in every cheaper houses in London and the SE

Yes. Assuming sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand.

do the economies in scale cause the higher foreign borrowing to buy the increased level of imports

What?

do economies of scale show themsleve in the every improving transport system

Yes. Assuming investment is actually made to the infrastructure. Look at Japanese public transport. We could have that.

we severed many of our major trading ties when we joined the EU : do you think that was a disaster?

Did we? What trade did we give away?

Since I don't agree with your initial premise, I can't agree with your conclusion. We've been much better off within the EU.

If the population was stable we would not need to build more infrustructure or widen roads or absorb more land with housing more schools, more hospitals water works etc.

Assuming no demographic changes, of course.

People commuting further would need more infrastructure.
Personal cars becoming too expensive would need more infrastructure.
People living fewer to a house would require more houses.
Higher proportion of children would require more schools.
Higher proportion of elderly would require more care homes and hospitals.

We need to invest in this stuff even if our population stays the same, unless you want to lock the entire country in 1973.

Surely you believe the increasing population of Greece will lead to massive economies of scale providing a better living standard, just as the massively increasing population of India and many African and Asia countries are guaranteed a bright future will their ever increasing populations

If managed correctly, of course.

Again. The problem is not the number of people. The problem is in the investment in the infrastructure to support the number of people. We absolutely refuse to invest in infrastructure our housing, and it's caught up with us.

Tokyo has a population double that of London, but doesn't have the same infrastructure issues. House prices are nuts though, I'll admit.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Brits doing what they do best - creating businesses which can then be sold to foreign firms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38344235



Overseas firms must be delighted with the Brexit referendum induced fall in Sterling.

what is your evidence that the creation of new businesses outstrip the sale to overseas buyers

the current evidence is that our overseas debt is increasing
that our net overseas assets (ie. what we own abroad and what they own of ours) is decreasing
that our net foreign dividend cash flow is worsening

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

UK people were not excluded for applying, as far as I remember.




Yes.

Yes. Assuming sufficient houses are built to satisfy demand.



What?



Yes. Assuming investment is actually made to the infrastructure. Look at Japanese public transport. We could have that.




Did we? What trade did we give away?

Since I don't agree with your initial premise, I can't agree with your conclusion. We've been much better off within the EU.



Assuming no demographic changes, of course.

People commuting further would need more infrastructure.
Personal cars becoming too expensive would need more infrastructure.
People living fewer to a house would require more houses.
Higher proportion of children would require more schools.
Higher proportion of elderly would require more care homes and hospitals.

We need to invest in this stuff even if our population stays the same, unless you want to lock the entire country in 1973.





If managed correctly, of course.

Again. The problem is not the number of people. The problem is in the investment in the infrastructure to support the number of people. We absolutely refuse to invest in infrastructure our housing, and it's caught up with us.

Tokyo has a population double that of London, but doesn't have the same infrastructure issues. House prices are nuts though, I'll admit.

so in summary : if we increased taxation by large amounts we could spend more on infrastructure so we can get back to where we once were per capita

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

so in summary : if we increased taxation by large amounts we could spend more on infrastructure so we can get back to where we once were per capita

In summary: if more people pay tax, and we don't mismanage the coffers, then we could have world class infrastructure.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

In summary: if more people pay tax, and we don't mismanage the coffers, then we could have world class infrastructure.

so to get back to the per capita infrastructure we enjoyed some years ago we need to pay more tax due to the increase in population.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

In summary: if more people pay tax, and we don't mismanage the coffers, then we could have world class infrastructure.

The existing budget deficit hasn't been addressed yet. Infrastructure requires a huge capital spend. Not just to build but plan. Immigration is running at a faster ability to cope with the demand/requirements. Even with the infrastructure. You need trained staff. In many industries people are leaving early as are fed up etc etc. That's a huge amount of knowledge and experience walking out of the door.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

so to get back to the per capita infrastructure we enjoyed some years ago we need to pay more tax due to the increase in population.

No. The increased population should increase the total tax take, so theoritically we'd need to pay less, or have more to invest.

But that doesn't account for things like government wastage and the likes.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

No. The increased population should increase the total tax take, so theoritically we'd need to pay less, or have more to invest.

But that doesn't account for things like government wastage and the likes.

as of today, our infrastructure need improving relative that that of 20 years ago (motorways were largely appropriate to the traffic, trains were far less crowded, family houses in london were affordable etc)

the change has been largely the increase in population (not solely)

so just to get back to that same level as we formilly enjoyed we need to spend money.

we would need to increase now tax now not to improve things realtive to 20 years ago but merely to spend for the population increase.

no theory about it, its a real cost of increase in population.

gfplux

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Switzerland kowtows!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/switzerland-u-turn-quotas-on-eu-workers-immigration

]

Oh dear Brexiters.

Oh dear.

I did like this quote
"In a standoff with close parallels to Britain’s situation after the Brexit vote, Brussels had refused to budge from its stance that any attempt to restrict free movement by caps or quotas would automatically exclude Switzerland from the single market."

gfplux

wotsthat wrote: »

Brits doing what they do best - creating businesses which can then be sold to foreign firms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38344235



Overseas firms must be delighted with the Brexit referendum induced fall in Sterling.

Is this good or bad news. I am beginning to be (more) confused.
When a biscuit make goes out of business and 99 people lose their jobs I thought that was bad news but with so many posts discussing biscuits I now am not sure!