If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

Conrad wrote: »

The idea we will have no influence is a pitiful argument, we're not pip squeaks

For now that is the case

But with less than 1% of the worlds future population how long can it last?

The empire is certainly not what it was. We have already gone from #1 towards #6/7 and all else equal we will slowly slide towards #15 over the next 100 years.

The EU as a block would possibly be #2/#3 for a long time

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

Most EU nations have a positive trade balance with the rest of the world.

Further confirmation of how easy it is to export to countries with tariffs.

How much are tariffs anyway? OK someone will no doubt come along with an extreme example, but for most stuff it's around 3/4%?

The pound moves more than that against the Euro on a regular basis.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

They are all direct predicted consequences of large scale immigration; as members of the EU we can't control the number of EU immigrants.

The price of 'normal' London /SE properties is not a consequence of rich Chinese (that may be true for the prime location) but rather the weight of 100,000 people per year moving into London many of whom are immigrant : over 3 million of the 8 million Londoners are foreign born (approximate figures), it takes a fairly extreme person to argue such numbers have no effect on the availability and price of property for native born people.
There is no prospect of the situation improving with the continued growth of the population due to immigration.

The wage issue is that the supply of cheap labour holds wages down and reduces the need of employers to invest to improve productivity; 100 % of economists would agree.

The facts are that the infrastructure has not been built to cater for the increased number of people: this has yet to be funded and built: without the 8 million foreigners there would be no requirement to build much of this infrastructure.
The figures that claim immigration is a net benefit do not include these infrastructure costs that are directly caused by immigration.

More transport, more hospital etc cost money which would not be needed if the population were smaller.
Presumably you would want to fund this by more taxation and more borrowing: probably not a view that Cameron will be emphasising.

Only a moron would believe that all problems in the UK are due to immigration : that is patently untrue.

However this debate is about the one-off opportunity to take control of immigration so it is appropriate to discuss that issue as part of the EU stay/go debate.


Large scale immigration brings virtually no benefits and lots of
drawbacks.
The real losers are the young in the SE who have poorer wages, poorer job opportunities and smaller and poorer housing than would be the case with a smaller population:

the winners I guess are people like me asset rich and plenty of labour around but that's another debate

they dont have smaller housing as a result of immigrants, they live about 0.1 maybe 0.2 extra people per house due to the immigrants.

However that 0.1-0.2 disadvantage also comes with the advantage that their main asset is worth a lot more than what it otherwise would be. it gives them the option to sell and buy a mansion op norf

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

For now that is the case

But with less than 1% of the worlds future population how long can it last?

The empire is certainly not what it was. We have already gone from #1 towards #6/7 and all else equal we will slowly slide towards #15 over the next 100 years.

The EU as a block would possibly be #2/#3 for a long time

we have virtually no influence now so there would be little change.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Yes, independent nations collaborate across borders all the time, and yet we're told by fearful unimaginative Remainiacs that outside of the EU an independent Britain will suffer some dreadful fate unable to properly co-operate and work with others...........................

Surely the point is that the UK managed to do this quite successfully from within the EU. Of course it could do it outside the EU , but it can do it from within.

The fate is not the opportunity to influence, it is whether we will be more prosperous outside or less, and therefore whether we will be in a position to influence more or less.

I am sure that the UK can participate in all sorts of things without EU membership being a factor.

But I am less sure that UK can negotiate a trade deal with other nations that is better than the ones that the EU negotiate. Its all about the strength of your bargaining position. Tell me why the US, China, etc will give the UK a better trade deal than it gives the EU?

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

An independent Britain will have a seat at many global bodies to include;




The UN
NATO
The G20
G7
FVEY (critical intelligence sharing of 5 nations - the EU need access to this - the UK gives them this)


WTO
WHO
Codex Alimentarius
IPCC and all manner of other environmental bodies

The idea we will have no influence is a pitiful argument, we're not pip squeaks

And which of these do we NOT currently have a presence on (WTO apart)?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

they dont have smaller housing as a result of immigrants, they live about 0.1 maybe 0.2 extra people per house due to the immigrants.

However that 0.1-0.2 disadvantage also comes with the advantage that their main asset is worth a lot more than what it otherwise would be. it gives them the option to sell and buy a mansion op norf

there are 3 million foreign born people in London out of a population of 8 million
re-do your maths

most of the young in London don't have an asset to sell and move up north

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are 3 million foreign born people in London out of a population of 8 million
re-do your maths

most of the young in London don't have an asset to sell and move up north

even those who do not have an asset to sell often benefit

For instance I know one family that sold their hackney home and moved to telford in the midlands. The three grown up children plus the parents were all able to buy a home each from the proceeds plus change. 4 mortgage free homes (kids are in their 20s) thanks to them darn migrants

That was probably as good as can have been for that family. Not being nasty but all the kids had quite poor paying (min or near min wage) jobs and didnt seem to have the desire to try for any more.

So a good outcome for those three young londoners

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are 3 million foreign born people in London out of a population of 8 million

that few?

I think if you include those born to migrants, going back say 10 generations. Its possibly at high as 7 million of the 8.5

even the next king is the child of a migrant.
The king after that is a migrant out two generations.
Boris may be the next PM and he is descendant of migrants.
The Millibands. Hell even farage of UKIP fame has a foreign wife and half foreign kids

If we sent them all back London would be cheaper than stoke on trent

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

that few?

I think if you include those born to migrants, going back say 10 generations. Its possibly at high as 7 million of the 8.5

even the next king is the child of a migrant.
The king after that is a migrant out two generations.
Boris may be the next PM and he is descendant of migrants.
The Millibands. Hell even farage of UKIP fame has a foreign wife and half foreign kids

If we sent them all back London would be cheaper than stoke on trent

what's your point?

that you support immediate total free movement of people?

that all your 'cousins' are totally entitled to share your income and wealth without limit?