If we vote for Brexit what happens

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

it is true that in or out isn't a choice between crowds or no crowds.
It is so that immigration will increase crowds and it will certainly make housing situation worse for young people as more people compete for houses.

Interesting that you don't see your long term future here which probably explains your indifference to the welfare of the people of the UK.

Clapton, it is tiresome trying to argue against make believe stuff. Particularly with someone feebly trying to take the moral high ground by putting words into my mouth.

My long term future could be here, or it might not be depending on how things unfold. But for the moment my future is here and my interest lies in a prosperous UK. I firmly believe that remain is the best short and long term path for a prosperous UK. You clearly don't but don't resort to cheap shots, while pretending you're above that.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Clapton, it is tiresome trying to argue against make believe stuff. Particularly with someone feebly trying to take the moral high ground by putting words into my mouth.

My long term future could be here, or it might not be depending on how things unfold. But for the moment my future is here and my interest lies in a prosperous UK. I firmly believe that remain is the best short and long term path for a prosperous UK. You clearly don't but don't resort to cheap shots, while pretending you're above that.

Do you or do you not agree that
-higher population is likely to make the UK more crowded
-higher population in London (growing at 100,000 per annum) means that the young will have to put up with poorer accommodation as housing is not expanding in line with needs
- that when jobs are falling due to a downturn, immigration will make the situation worse for the natives
-whilst it is true that increased population creates demand for goods and services, there is no economic law that says the extra demand is greater or smaller that the increase in supply
-that a greater population requires more essential imports with no corresponding increase in exports so produces a increase in the balance of trade deficit, which in the long run is harmful to the economy

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you or do you not agree that
-higher population is likely to make the UK more crowded

Naturally.

-higher population in London (growing at 100,000 per annum) means that the young will have to put up with poorer accommodation as housing is not expanding in line with needs

You are framing the questions how you prefer to. I will answer them how I prefer to. Yes, higher population without adequate building will result in higher rents (house prices are a factor of a lot more things). Like it or not the trend of the world is toward more populace cities at the moment and London is the UK powerhouse. We export services from London and jobs are being created all the time. The fault here lies with the UK not encouraging divestment to other cities (e.g. Bristol) and government not using carrot and stick on councils for lack of planning permission, same applies to builders. We should build smartly in London. Much of the east of London is fairly down market and ripe for proper high rise gentrification. We could even create green spaces there at the same time while increasing density. People who want to work and live amongst the London crowds can choose to do so or not.

- that when jobs are falling due to a downturn, immigration will make the situation worse for the natives

I disagree.

-whilst it is true that increased population creates demand for goods and services, there is no economic law that says the extra demand is greater or smaller that the increase in supply

Sure, but we have a growing economy and opportunities to continue this. Almost all developed countries have had a lot of immigration at various periods in their histories and thrived because of it, not in spite of it.

-that a greater population requires more essential imports with no corresponding increase in exports so produces a increase in the balance of trade deficit, which in the long run is harmful to the economy

This again is too vague an assertion. The UK has made a choice to have a high wage culture with high land costs (grrrr) and we have a high cost service and expertise export business. We are not a cheap producing country and cannot compete with cheap producing countries at their own game. If you want to do so, we must all pay higher taxes to subsidise our industries. Our low productivity and relatively low GDP per capita is an interesting topic which has some tangents with immigration but isn't the full story.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Well, if you are sure that the pound will devalue relative to the euro, you have a unique opportunity to make a fortune by borrowing in pounds as much as possible (mortgage the house?) and buy euros, ready to sell once the pound collapses.

Given the huge balance of trade issues we have due to the ever expanding need for essential imports (food, fuel etc) to feed the expanding population, you would be on a one way bet.

food import bill is only about £50 per head per year because base ingredients are extremely cheap.

Energy imports again are low because new homes are very efficient on gas and overall energy use is falling thanks to improvements on technology. So even with the population expanding by 500,000 a year energy demand has been falling quite a lot over the last 10 years

Also it can be argued that the EU did the whole world a favor by pushing for higher energy standards and regulations on everything from cars to TVs to computers to lights to hoovers to washing machines. Not only has it resulted in a lot less energy use but its also resulted in less need for new electricity infrastructure. If Wind power or solar power takes off on its own merits that will again be thanks to EU Nations. If anything its probably one of the clear positive actions of the EU one could point to

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

food import bill is only about £50 per head per year because base ingredients are extremely cheap.

Energy imports again are low because new homes are very efficient on gas and overall energy use is falling thanks to improvements on technology. So even with the population expanding by 500,000 a year energy demand has been falling quite a lot over the last 10 years

Also it can be argued that the EU did the whole world a favor by pushing for higher energy standards and regulations on everything from cars to TVs to computers to lights to hoovers to washing machines. Not only has it resulted in a lot less energy use but its also resulted in less need for new electricity infrastructure. If Wind power or solar power takes off on its own merits that will again be thanks to EU Nations. If anything its probably one of the clear positive actions of the EU one could point to

food drink and feed imports run at about 40 billion while exports run at about 20 billion so a 20 billion deficit of about £300 per person if you wish to put it the way


by and large domestic energy consumption is pretty constant : overall energy use is due to the decline in industrial use : it appears that we are outsourcing our energy consumption. Probably because each ton of CO2 produced in india or chine has less global warming impact that the equivalent production in the UK

It would seem that the countries with the most renewable power are China, USA, Brazil and Canada

But very happy to acknowledge the efforts that the EU has made to encourage greater energy efficiency even if many of the claimed results have proved to be fraudulent.

Doubtless we all rejoice in the EU forced decision to increase VAT to 20% of loft insulation and other energy efficiency systems.

mwpt

Interesting, this thread has drifted quite far from the original title. At the time I wasn't concentrating much so apparently missed 1000s of posts, but I wonder, in the interim period after a Brexit vote, would we see a huge surge in immigration as people rush to get in before the gates are closed?

Sorry if this was covered before.

mayonnaise

Latest ITV/Comres Poll puts remain at an 11 point lead. :T

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-20/itv-news-poll-remain-stretches-lead-over-brexit-with-two-months-to-go-to-eu-referendum/

It looks like the public didn't really warm to Gove's Albanian option.

Turnout will be key as the cantankerous little england brexiteers will definitely turn up on the day.

michaels

mayonnaise wrote: »

Latest ITV/Comres Poll puts remain at an 11 point lead. :T

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-20/itv-news-poll-remain-stretches-lead-over-brexit-with-two-months-to-go-to-eu-referendum/

It looks like the public didn't really warm to Gove's Albanian option.

Turnout will be key as the cantankerous little england brexiteers will definitely turn up on the day.

That is certainly one poll. And completely in line with other polls by Comres.

Whereas this is a link to a poll tracker with a rolling poll of polls showing 44:42.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Personally being in favour of Brexit I am very happy that the general public get the impression that Remain is a forgone conclusion as those vaguely in favour of Remain but not that bothered won't bother to vote if a Remain victory is assured where as those in favour of Brexit I suspect will vote anyway

dirk84

good point!

mayonnaise

michaels wrote: »

Personally being in favour of Brexit I am very happy that the general public get the impression that Remain is a forgone conclusion as those vaguely in favour of Remain but not that bothered won't bother to vote if a Remain victory is assured where as those in favour of Brexit I suspect will vote anyway

Very true. Complacency on the remain side would be catastrophic.
Therefore, glad to see the FT poll of polls much closer.