If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Fair enough cells as long as you one day don't bemoan the mega congestion, the environmental degradation, the relentless demand fed housing crisis (building more homes attracts more migrants) putting home prices beyond the reach of your kids / grandkids, the general sense you can barely find a magic corner in the once glorious English countryside as towns urban become corridors, nor our over-reliance on food imports which could leave us very vulnerable if a global war occurred.


I reckon we have more than enough Humans here and I also hate the fact we applaud us attracting vital talent from poor countries - don't they need nurses and Docs? What of their Baby P's left immensely vulnerable as there's far too few social workers? Remember this next time a smug Tim Farron applauds the fact we greedily hoover up so many migrants to wipe our bums in old age

I don't see that a rising population has to be a negative. I am not sure anyone would argue that the rapidly expanding population of the 1800s was a bad thing if anything you could argue that it saved the country. Nor would many say the population growth of the 1900s was bad. And in time we will look back at the 2000-2050 period where maybe the population expands by as much as 20 million and think it was a net positive.

I know I would worry much more about a drop of 20 million in population than a rise of 20 million.

Also if my anectodal experience is anything to go by most the natives and non first gen migrants (except the Indians) are aproching zero children per women. I know more women in the 25-35 bracket who are childless than I know that have children or look likely to have them in the near future. I wouldn't be too surprised if the non first gen migrat birth rate per women falls towards 1 by 2030. I hope its just my observation not representative of the general population but I fear we are heading for a disaster in fertility rates one that is for the time masked by first gen migrants

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

In what way exactly will Brexit reduce immigration?.....and don't say ...'because we will be in control of our own borders'.....because that's tosh!

There is no guarantee it will reduce it, however I believe it would.

- The UK government would have control over the amount of people we allow into the country to settle. At the moment we're unable to say "We would only allow 150,000 migrants a year.". Within the EU the UK government simply doesn't have the ability to do that.

- They would also have control over the type of migrants that enter. Cultural background, educational background and employment background. The ability to speak the native language would be a massive factor in the decision to allow migrants to enter the country and settle.

- I would expect such a system to work in a similar way to the current system of non-EU migration, where your application was more likely to be successful if you have an employer sponsoring your application for leave to enter and leave to remain. So business should still have access to highly skilled migrants that meet the criteria set out by the UK immigration policy.

I believe you would see a reduction in EU migrants as it's quite reasonable to expect the same English Speaking/Reading/Writing/Listening scoring system that is in place for non-EU migrants would be in place for EU migrants. How big the reduction would be I guess would depend on the numbers that do meet this criteria and how many migrants business require.

cells

Moby wrote: »

You been reading this Cells?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Germs-Steel-history-everybody/dp/0099302780

No I've not come across that book but the title seems interesting

In the past I had thought that the USA was largely an immigrant country but I read recently that one of the reasons for success there was that the birth rate was the highest in the world for a time because the north east of the country was perfect for human habitation specifically deaths due to insects (things like mosquitoes) was low as the cold winters kept them in control. So the USA seeded with immigrants from Europe and elsewhere allowed them to flourish at least partly due to good geographical luck and grow exponentially. I was thinking about posting that earlier but I was already receiving too much hate from the 'it's all capatilism' crew so didn't get around to it

Capatilism is great but other factors played big parts in shaping the world and the Nations.

Edit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Interesting read

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

No I've not come across that book but the title seems interesting

In the past I had thought that the USA was largely an immigrant country but I read recently that one of the reasons for success there was that the birth rate was the highest in the world for a time because the north east of the country was perfect for human habitation specifically deaths due to insects (things like mosquitoes) was low as the cold winters kept them in control. So the USA seeded with immigrants from Europe and elsewhere allowed them to flourish at least partly due to good geographical luck and grow exponentially. I was thinking about posting that earlier but I was already receiving too much hate from the 'it's all capatilism' crew so didn't get around to it

Capatilism is great but other factors played big parts in shaping the world and the Nations.

I'd probably agree with some of the arguments made by the "it's all capitalism" crew. Not with everything they say but in particular with the ability of the banking sector to create money out of thin air and the reliance of western economies on debt, in ever increasing amounts. It's the very antithesis of the word "economic" and will eventually fail.

Planet has finite resources, therefore growth cannot continue exponentially, which is what they're asking for when they want 2% growth every year.

Moby

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-border:-
Blair told an audience at Ulster University that a vote to leave would result in the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic becoming the frontier between the UK and the rest of the EU.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/cbi-projects-1m-fewer-jobs-post-brexit-with-young-worst-hit
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/09/poorer-uk-families-shoulder-heavier-burden-brexit-costs-niesr

.....but it's all an establishment conspiracy/lies and the reality will be wonderful ....because we'll all be safe from Jonny foreigner....we'll be able to unlock our doors again and the lower population will lead to enough green space to have loads of new village cricket pitches!

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Also if my anectodal experience is anything to go by most the natives and non first gen migrants (except the Indians) are aproching zero children per women. I know more women in the 25-35 bracket who are childless than I know that have children or look likely to have them in the near future. I wouldn't be too surprised if the non first gen migrat birth rate per women falls towards 1 by 2030. I hope its just my observation not representative of the general population but I fear we are heading for a disaster in fertility rates one that is for the time masked by first gen migrants

in london and the SE many couples delay / or abandon the idea of having children because of the difficulty of living in a family sized house

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

in london and the SE many couples delay / or abandon the idea of having children because of the difficulty of living in a family sized house

So is a million pound terrace home in hackney going to suddenly become affordable for that couple on June 23?

Are we going to get the 80% house price crash needed in London to make two people working full time in asda able to afford 'a family home'?

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There is no guarantee it will reduce it, however I believe it would.

- The UK government would have control over the amount of people we allow into the country to settle. At the moment we're unable to say "We would only allow 150,000 migrants a year.". Within the EU the UK government simply doesn't have the ability to do that.

- They would also have control over the type of migrants that enter. Cultural background, educational background and employment background. The ability to speak the native language would be a massive factor in the decision to allow migrants to enter the country and settle.

- I would expect such a system to work in a similar way to the current system of non-EU migration, where your application was more likely to be successful if you have an employer sponsoring your application for leave to enter and leave to remain. So business should still have access to highly skilled migrants that meet the criteria set out by the UK immigration policy.

I believe you would see a reduction in EU migrants as it's quite reasonable to expect the same English Speaking/Reading/Writing/Listening scoring system that is in place for non-EU migrants would be in place for EU migrants. How big the reduction would be I guess would depend on the numbers that do meet this criteria and how many migrants business require.

I take the above points but we already have a lot of these powers you describe above...........also don't forget a lot of the immigration into the UK is from Non EU countries?.....also don't forget we have cross border agreements with our neighbours at present...do you think France would co-operate with us in Calais in exactly the same way that it does now should we Brexit?
If we want to have continuing access to the single market after Brexit.....can the Brexiteers guarantee that we will get a deal as good as the one we have now?......and won't any deal result in continuing free movement of peoples?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

in london and the SE many couples delay / or abandon the idea of having children because of the difficulty of living in a family sized house

No. Cheap parts of the country eg the midlands and even cheaper countries eg Germany also have dire birth rates. Anyway my point was if what I am seeing is representative then the birth rate of non first gen migrants is going to be extremely dire in the near future maybe it will go to 1.3 kids per woman like in Italy or Spain or Poland.

Surely even you would agree that a birthrate of 1.3 kids per woman would be dire if sustained.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

in london and the SE many couples delay / or abandon the idea of having children because of the difficulty of living in a family sized house

That's good because it means there'll more room for all the immigrants coming in...thinking ahead we'll need to make room for the inflow from Turkey's accession into the EU.