If we vote for Brexit what happens

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

You do not need to build a city the size of Leeds unless the aim is to create a new town for immigrants to live in.

82% of immigrants work and pay taxes. If the Government chooses not to let those services be provided whose fault is this?

No, you don't have to build a city the size of Leeds. But you have to build the equivalent throughout the UK. Otherwise services, housing etc will need to be rationed.

Because we live in a complex society with so many rules and regulation on planning, environment and goodness knows what else, building an extra 100,000 houses every year isn't as easy as you make out.

BTW, are there any limits to how many immigrants you think the Govt. could easily accommodate each year?. 500,000, 1,000,000, 2,000,000? Give us your best guess.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

Shades of grey

Most people are fairly intelligent and recognise that life is not black and white but nuanced....until it comes to political discourse at which point it seems we only like politicians who express certainty in their preferred view.

How many have stood up and said 'EU membership - arguments both ways, perhaps a bit less direct democratic control but less risk, Middle high earners gain from cheaper un/low skilled labour, lower earners lose out'

Instead we get Hitler vs WW3 arguments. Darwinism suggests that we get the politicians who know what works so it seems that we like to be told there is a certain right answer rather than having to grapple with that uncertainty ourselves.

I was listening to an LBC phone-in recently (Christos?) The host wanted a debate on the subject of the way the referendum was being conducted and wanting callers to explain what aspects of the campaign they were not supporting had merit. He gave up after a while since all the callers were all so bigoted and certain they were right. Rather makes your point.

The tragedy is that this is a big decision for the UK and 80%+ of us appear not to care less. Of the rest they include many of the types who rang the phone in. However, I though it was an interesting exercise by LBC.

The issue is as you say not black and white. While I am fairly commited to Remain I do accept there is a case for Leaving.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I did not ignore it. Though given the number of questions that you ignore I cannot see why I cannot do it too.

Those responsible for planning infrastructure of any kind have to plan for the capacity they expect in the future. I agree that immigration does not help this but it is only part of the problem. Compared to the changes which happen normally the addition of some immigrants is a small part of the general problem. Blaming immigration for all problems is not helpful.

what changes happen 'normally'?
immigration is the major cause of population increase

It's absurd to claim that anyone has said (except as claimed by the 'remain camp' ) that immigration is reponsible for all problems but clearly they are responsible for some that related to issues resulting from increase in population (housing, NHS pressure, balance of payments, over crowded transport, schools etc.)
The causal relationship between population growth and the resulting problems isn't a question of 'blame' but rather
-why make the people of the uK deliberately poorer
-how much are the tax increases needed to pay to simply get back to where we were 20 years ago?


If I have accidently failed to answer any of your questions I apologise but will do so should you choose to repost them.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

what changes happen 'normally'?
immigration is the major cause of population increase
.

The existing population has a demographic growth based on birth and death rates.

In any particular area (say a city council) there will be population changes due to ingress and egress of population from other parts of the UK

Net migration from outside of the UK is another factor in addition to these.

Perhaps normal is the wrong word but the first two will happen even if we stopped immigration..

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

No, you don't have to build a city the size of Leeds. But you have to build the equivalent throughout the UK. Otherwise services, housing etc will need to be rationed.

Because we live in a complex society with so many rules and regulation on planning, environment and goodness knows what else, building an extra 100,000 houses every year isn't as easy as you make out.

BTW, are there any limits to how many immigrants you think the Govt. could easily accommodate each year?. 500,000, 1,000,000, 2,000,000? Give us your best guess.

I did not say that it was easy. Town Planning is difficult.

I have no idea what constitutes a limit and would not guess. I suppose we will reach that point when immigrants find it more difficult to find work and will stop coming.

At present India and Poland are popular places to come from. But there may come a day when those in India see more benefit in going elsewhere or even remaining in India. Equally Poland may grow and have more jobs for its citizens.

Fact remains, we need more labour immigration to sustain our economy.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

At present India and Poland are popular places to come from.

Add Spain and Italy to the list. High youth unemployment being the major factor.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

are there any limits to how many immigrants you think the Govt. could easily accommodate each year?. 500,000, 1,000,000, 2,000,000? Give us your best guess.

Eleventy.

Seriously though, what's the point of such a question?

The fact is that EU migration, in the numbers we've had, and in the mix of education levels, skills and ages we've had, has been a financial net contributor to the UK.

Anyone that has seriously looked with an open mind at the long term prospects for UK pensions, aged care, and national debt understands we need more immigrants not less.

We can build more houses, roads and GP clinics. There's plenty of space to do so given the built environment in the UK is just 4% of our land and residential housing covers just 1.1% of land.

But we can't rebalance the books given the impending demographic crisis in this country without importing millions of young people to compensate for 5 decades of birth rates being below the replacement level.

Immigration on a massive scale is utterly inevitable.

As despite how politically unpopular it might be the only other alternatives, slashing NHS provision and pensions, or massively raising taxes, are even less popular.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Eleventy.

Seriously though, what's the point of such a question?

The fact is that EU migration, in the numbers we've had, and in the mix of education levels, skills and ages we've had, has been a financial net contributor to the UK.

Anyone that has seriously looked with an open mind at the long term prospects for UK pensions, aged care, and national debt understands we need more immigrants not less.

there is a demographic that shows that the population is aging.
It is also true that retirement age in increasing
that the health of older people is improving
that is there is plenty of scope for productivity improvements

there is nothing to show that with no immigrtion that we can continue to experience a better quality of life

We can build more houses, roads and GP clinics. There's plenty of space to do so given the built environment in the UK is just 4% of our land and residential housing covers just 1.1% of land.

the usual figure for england is that 11% of the land is developed: if you plan on stealing peoples gardens and closing down receational land (playing fields, parks etc) then you may get to your 4%

But we can't rebalance the books given the impending demographic crisis in this country without importing millions of young people to compensate for 5 decades of birth rates being below the replacement level.

Immigration on a massive scale is utterly inevitable.

there is nothing in any of the figures to suggest any of this is true
additional the currrent wave of immigrant will make the demographics worse in 30-40 years as they themselves age

As despite how politically unpopular it might be the only other alternatives, slashing NHS provision and pensions, or massively raising taxes, are even less popular.

we don't need a single immigrant at the present time : if in twenty years time it seems otherwise, then we can reconsider the situation.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

the usual figure for england is that 11% of the land is developed: if you plan on stealing peoples gardens and closing down receational land (playing fields, parks etc) then you may get to your 4%

Not true.

The figure for the UK is 9% of land in "urban areas" but more than half of urban areas are green space.

Therefore my point remains - only around 4% of the UK is built on in any way - to house, employ and transport 65m people.

Claims of "concreting over the countryside" would be laughable even if we were talking about adding another 65m people.

For a fraction of that they're just risible.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not true.

The figure for the UK is 9% of land in "urban areas" but more than half of urban areas are green space.

Therefore my point remains - only around 4% of the UK is built on in any way - to house, employ and transport 65m people.

Claims of "concreting over the countryside" would be laughable even if we were talking about adding another 65m people.

For a fraction of that they're just risible.

The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.
Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built on.

so for England the figure is 11% :

If we steal peoples gardens and build on playing fields and parks, fill in lakes, canals, rivers etc then we have

In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.
Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%.
Their conclusion?
In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is…

Now I fully support the using of green space for essential building but not for the obsessives who simply want to grow the UK to hundreds of millions and make us all the poorer.

Happy for scotland to level Ben Nevis if they wish and build some houses there.