If we vote for Brexit what happens

CKhalvashi

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

Well you won't be standing against him in the 2017 Election.;) I see they've already chosen your Candidate.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertford-and-stortford-general-election-candidate-for-the-liberal-democrats-will-be-mark-argent/story-30281064-detail/story.html

No doubt Mark will be glad to stand aside for you in 2022 :rotfl:

We have a strong local candidate, I'm happy

If we can get the right support into this area, the numbers suggest that with UKIP as a vote splitter, it's just about doable even if it is unlikely. How that will translate in reality I don't know, but we'll see.

Enterprise_1701C

gfplux wrote: »

Do you mean an awful lot of Polish people in Surrey?

I don't live in Surrey - I just used that in my profile.

davomcdave wrote: »

Well that resolves the problem of getting the jobs done that Brits can't do. What do you propose doing about the jobs they won't do? I'm guessing that your brave new world doesn't involve you picking fruit or sorting newspapers at 5am.

Presumably as it's not your business you don't give a fig if you wreck someone else's business model.

Considering that the Eastern Europeans tend to take lower wages, and a lot of them send their money home, then maybe this will force businesses to pay minimum wage and the money will be spent here, therefore providing more employment.

As for people unwilling to do the lower jobs, then maybe we should not allow people to turn up one day for a job then immediately go and sign on again.

The whole attitude in society has been created by the people coming in willing to take less money for the same job, that will take time to resolve, the entitlement attitude of a lot of youngsters has got to be changed, but we managed before Blair opened the floodgates and we will manage again.

Oh, and incidentally I have done fruit picking in the summer holidays, and I have sorted papers at 5 in the morning, well, 5.30 to be precise, getting them ready for the paper boys. Plenty of kids want summer holiday work to save up for college and uni but don't find it because it is taken by immigrants, but seasonal work was always covered you teenagers in my day.

Shakethedisease

mrginge wrote: »

If we look at NHS recruitment for example. We need to wean it away from immigrant labour without compromising an already overstretched service. A fresh five year term means we can get on with that process now and it gets you a bit further down that road by the time you have to go back to the country.

Might be a bit of a problem there.

Faisal Islam‏Verified account @faisalislam
UCAS apps stats last week - Nursing in England down 23% after bursary abolished - with 27k vacancies, fewer EU - 2020 could be interesting.

.. also, half of nurses are now within a decade of retirement too - alarmingly similar to the tweet storm I did on construction industry...

.. also noteworthy that numbers in Scotland remained stable, dipping 2% (vs 23% fall in England) - Scot Gov kept the nursing bursaries

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/853601548013883393

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

What a load of juvenile male cattle.
Still, it does more than adequately display your complete disdain for the populace; I wonder how you can possibly stand life in our country?

It isn't binary at all - much though you would dearly love it to be.
You're assuming that there are as if by magic many new jobs available requiring these hospitals to be cleaned and fruit to be picked.
Are the people doing these jobs now merely to be cast aside?
Or are we going to magically pluck the need for these new jobs out of the ether?

What you refuse to accept is that for many a "full" sign should be displayed at the door to the UK.
What we really don't need are bus/train/airplane loads more migrants arriving without a job to come to.
Maybe when they're needed, but not when we are already full.
And we are.

Foreign workers already handle our fruit - we don't tend to produce much in the way of oranges, grapes and mangoes in the UK in case you hadn't noticed.
These pesky foreigners are very likely to have handled most of what you own in fact.
The meals are likely to be imports too and the porters?
Well as 16.7% of total workers are foreign-born (according to the Migration Observatory) I suppose naturally some of them will be immigrants.
And never - never - have I heard anyone complaining about paying anybody in these forums, be they "Brits" or otherwise; show me where they do?
MP's excepted of course, since lots grumble about how useless they are generally.
No, no-one is unwilling to pay Brits to do these jobs - that is just your usual deluded spin and further evidence of your condescension towards the people of the UK.

Talking of which, how good it is of you to to describe the entire nation as hypocritical liars.
Fortunately that is just your opinion and as we all know, opinions are like an a@se**le; everybody has one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
So why not explain to us all just what you personally have done to negate any of what you describe yourself; you will I'm sure now tell us that you never buy from the web to save jobs and that you never eat tuna in order to save dolphins?
Or will you attempt: "No, I mean what everybody else thinks! Not me!"

I wonder if you bother to look around you as you buy your £3 meal deal in Tesco?
Raise your eyes and look - at what a multicultural bunch make up the crowds as you choose your meal.
You might also see the sections of the supermarket devoted to foods from around the world, specifically targetted at those shoppers not native to the UK.

Now okay, a few Brits may have a problem with that cultural diversity but they are in a very small minority; most are blase if not accepting.
Again, it is the continuing mass influx without pre-planned prospects which gives rise to reluctance - not those already here.

Methinks then that by far the most hypocritical one here is yourself.

The consumer by their actions support FoM.

The consumer by their words don't support FoM.

It's hypocrisy. Think of a nicer word if you like but that's what it is.

I've said this before but take everything you're told with a pinch of salt. If you want to know what people's priorities are then looking at their bank statements and at what they do with their time rather than what they say will be more enlightening.

Why do I have to negate any of the effects I mention. I like being served with coffee by pretty Italian girls in Pret, I like the job those Romainians do cleaning the car and I like £3 meal deals. If I thought there was a workforce willing and able to step in I could could contemplate paying a little bit more but I don't want to live in your fantasy.

I don't want someone who would prefer to be on benefits being forced into the workplace and making my falafel wrap thank you. That could go terribly wrong.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

The consumer by their actions support FoM.
The consumer buys only what is available and from whom it is available.
The consumer by their words don't support FoM.
Amongst other things, yes.
Outside the EU what G20 nations allow freedom of movement?
It's hypocrisy. Think of a nicer word if you like but that's what it is.
No. It is dealing with what we have.
I've said this before but take everything you're told with a pinch of salt. If you want to know what people's priorities are then looking at their bank statements and at what they do with their time rather than what they say will be more enlightening.
So you want freedom of movement but NOT freedom of choice?

Why do I have to negate any of the effects I mention. I like being served with coffee by pretty Italian girls in Pret, I like the job those Romainians do cleaning the car and I like £3 meal deals. If I thought there was a workforce willing and able to step in I could could contemplate paying a little bit more but I don't want to live in your fantasy.
It's not my fantasy though is it, it's yours. If these people are already here serving you your coffee etc. the only way you will pay more is if you invent more jobs for more migrants when neither are needed.
Will you pay double for your coffee to fund another Italian waitress when one is doing just fine?

I don't want someone who would prefer to be on benefits being forced into the workplace and making my falafel wrap thank you. That could go terribly wrong.
There is no suggestion that they should - you're doing nothing more than obfuscating.

We are full.
We have all the workers we need, as evidenced by both employment statistics and vacancy statistics.
We do not need any more.

CKhalvashi

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

We are full.
We have all the workers we need, as evidenced by both employment statistics and vacancy statistics.
We do not need any more.

So, you don't want Britain to be used to its full potential? You don't want British companies to be able to get staff in place to expand, thus increasing exports for the whole world? How will this happen without additional workers?

And then you say we're the ones that don't want Britain to succeed :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CKhalvashi wrote: »

So, you don't want Britain to be used to its full potential? You don't want British companies to be able to get staff in place to expand, thus increasing exports for the whole world? How will this happen without additional workers?

And then you say we're the ones that don't want Britain to succeed :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Did you deliberately choose to ignore "when they're needed" ?
You wouldn't do such a thing to make an incorrect assumption now would you?

CKhalvashi

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Did you deliberately choose to ignore "when they're needed" ?
You wouldn't do such a thing to make an incorrect assumption now would you?

Who decides when they're needed? You? Me? What processes are put in place to get the right people in the right place at the right time?

FoM overcomes some of this difficulty; people won't come unless there's work, and obviously there is additional work as employment figures are up.

So, if we are full, we can't house or support anyone else, oh, but except those we actually want when it suits us, what else are you leaving out?

You say I keep making incorrect assumptions, was that like the one when I said there will be an election this year, which you shrugged off and said only the LDs want it?

How incorrect was I about that, then? Therefore, how incorrect am I going to be about other predictions I've made, including that Brexit will fail the UK for the next 20 years, by which time you'll be smugly retired and it'll be too late for me to even start to re-build what I have now?

Time will tell........

ETA: I have never fought for something just because it benefits me personally, however it seems far too easy for you to sit back and criticise when you have absolutely nothing to lose as a result of this.

I want the UK to succeed, I think that's in all of our interests, however I refuse to sit back and accept it's going to be as easy as some Leave voters here are claiming. Hard lesson is coming for you: It won't be.

Like Dave, I'm not necessarily as negative as some of the posts here may suggest, but please do take your fingers out your ears and look at the harsh reality, not just your ideal scenario, which in the real world is going to at best isolate the UK from our closest neighbours and cause huge disruption in the process.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Who decides when they're needed? You? Me? What processes are put in place to get the right people in the right place at the right time?
Thankfully neither option. Tell us how other countries manage - how indeed we managed before the gates were opened?
FoM overcomes some of this difficulty; people won't come unless there's work, and obviously there is additional work as employment figures are up.
No, FOM causes many problems. This discussion has been had many times.
Try paying attention - and learning from what is said.
So, if we are full, we can't house or support anyone else, oh, but except those we actually want when it suits us, what else are you leaving out?
I tell you what, as well as making it a requirement to have a job before coming let's say "and a home" too.
Will that do?

You say I keep making incorrect assumptions, was that like the one when I said there will be an election this year, which you shrugged off and said only the LDs want it?
Show me where I say that?

How incorrect was I about that, then? Therefore, how incorrect am I going to be about other predictions I've made, including that Brexit will fail the UK for the next 20 years, by which time you'll be smugly retired and it'll be too late for me to even start to re-build what I have now?
You're incorrect about what I am supposed to have said for a start.
How many more examples do you want?
Here's one from Wednesday: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72420474&postcount=18937

Time will tell........

ETA: I have never fought for something just because it benefits me personally, however it seems far too easy for you to sit back and criticise when you have absolutely nothing to lose as a result of this.
I think there may be a word to adequately describe your first sentence.
Begins with "L".

I want the UK to succeed, I think that's in all of our interests, however I refuse to sit back and accept it's going to be as easy as some Leave voters here are claiming. Hard lesson is coming for you: It won't be.

Oh dear, I wish you would read my posts.
Read how many times I say that I do not expect the process to be easy or painless.
Forgive me though if I do not simply see negative everywhere as you and some others choose so to do.
Responses above in red.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

So, you don't want Britain to be used to its full potential? You don't want British companies to be able to get staff in place to expand, thus increasing exports for the whole world? How will this happen without additional workers?

Seems as if the EU is already setting the tone. Anyone for Soft Brexit?

Brussels starts to freeze Britain out of EU contracts

Commission memo tells staff to prepare to ‘disconnect’ UK

Brussels is starting systematically to shut out British groups from multibillion-euro contracts and urging companies to decamp to one of the 27 remaining EU members as it prepares for Brexit.


In an internal memo seen by the Financial Times, top!European Commission officials have told staff to avoid “unnecessary additional complications” with Britain before 2019, highlighting an administrative chill that is biting even before Britain leaves the bloc.!

It explicitly calls on EU staff to begin encouraging the UK-based private sector to prepare for the “legal repercussions” of Brexit and consider the need “to have an office in the EU” to maintain their operating permits. Agencies are also told to prepare to “disconnect”!the UK from sensitive databases, potentially on the day of Brexit.

Sent a week after Theresa May, the UK prime minister,!triggered Article 50 exit talks last month, the commission note outlines how Britain will in practice immediately lose out on money and influence, even though it retains the legal rights and obligations of formal membership.

Where legally possible, the commission and its agencies will be expected in all activities to “take account” of the fact that Britain may be “a third country” within two years, including in appointing staff and in awarding billions of euros of direct contracts for research projects or services.!

https://www.ft.com/content/f224b684-2513-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16