If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

cells wrote: »

Anyway back to the referendum.

I'm thinking of not voting as I simply have no idea which way is going to be the best road (or least worst).

My two biggest factors for each side is that the £10 billion (or thereabouts) annual net contribution is a lot of money and not paying that would be a big advantage and that UK based laws and regulations are more likely to be postivie for us than 28 Nations eulea and regs so that's my main pull factor for voting out. The biggest advantage I see of staying in is that I think a growing population is a huge benefit to the economy and Jobs and the vast majority of the existing population and that leaving would cause at least a temporary few years fall in output causing taxes to go up or debt to go up and services to go down.

I am not convinced which side has the greater net positives so for now its a non vote

I think not voting is not the solution. You should use your vote. IN my opinion, the case for remain is clear. This money that Leave would spend has been spent over and over again on things that we COULD spend it on. But there is no plan to actually do this. Its like someone offering to spend next years profits on giving you a pay rise, but they have promised everyone else and they do not know what the profits will be anyway.

The EU laws and regulations are so easy to ridicule, but most of these laws make sense in a free trade area. If we enter into trade agreements with other nations one aspect of them is going to be adopting their regulations when we sell into their markets. The reason the EU has common regulations is that it stops one country from undercutting another by having local regulations that limit our ability to sell to them. Sure if your firm only sells its goods and services in the UK then after Brexit they could make products that do not comply with EU regulations. Britain could have different regulations, or no regulations. How would that help the consumer if their products were less quality?

Other EU law exists to to protect the environment. I recall a time when many UK beaches in some areas had sewage outflows that meant raw sewage washed up on the beach?

Leave say that we would have the same legislation anyway in which case what is gained by that? But it is not always the case. BHS staff will benefit from pension protection from an agency set up because of EU Regulations. Before that the UK offerred no legal protection for pensions according to the Pensions Minister.

We need to take a realistic view of leaving. it might be beneficial but there is no evidence that it will. The status quo is the best option when you are not sure.

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

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?

We only have the powers I mentioned with regards to non-EU migration.

I think the nub of the argument is to be able to treat EU migration in the same way as non-EU migration and tighten up on it.

The Calais agreement is a bi-lateral agreement between the UK and France. It's nothing to do with the EU, that's not to say that France won't end the agreement to spite us. We would clearly need to come up with a different solution to this problem if they did end it.

Continued access to the single market is a given even if you declared independence in the house you live in. You would still have access to the market but tariffs would be involved. So assuming you're talking about tariff free access there is no guarantee that you could have tariff free access to the EU single market without also agreeing to the free movement of people.

Edit: Perhaps the declaration of independence is a bit of an extreme (improbable) example. But the UK can still sell into the market, we'd just be subject to the CET.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

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.

currently we have no shortage of labour.
the excessive population is doing harm to the people of the UK.

whilst only an idiot would suggest that on brexit day the availiability of family sized houses in London/SE will change significantly, we need to start limiting the immigrant flow asap as well as continuing the build new houses and then things will start to improve rather than continue to get worse.
(your view that things are bad now so lets make them worse, is not shared by me or any sensible people)

if in the future, the situation changes then we can change our policies if we have control.

the situation in the 18th century is not relavant : after all there was no national electricity grid then.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

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.

I guess this nonsense is better than you having to discusss your racist views about the English or your support for the IRA supporters Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and their lunatic support for killing millions in the cause of communisitc dictatorship. Or of course you might want to discuss the disaster that the mad socialists in Venuzuela are causing the ordinary people there.
It's not too late to start a new chapter in your life and become a decent human being.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

currently we have no shortage of labour.
the excessive population is doing harm to the people of the UK.

whilst only an idiot would suggest that on brexit day the availiability of family sized houses in London/SE will change significantly, we need to start limiting the immigrant flow asap as well as continuing the build new houses and then things will start to improve rather than continue to get worse.
(your view that things are bad now so lets make them worse, is not shared by me or any sensible people)

if in the future, the situation changes then we can change our policies if we have control.

the situation in the 18th century is not relavant : after all there was no national electricity grid then.

you have often tried to frame that voting out would help fix the woes of those who cant afford family homes in London yet you know full well that almost all the people who cannot afford to buy a 'family sized home' in London today wont be able to afford one on the 23rd of June this year, or the 23rd of June in 5 years time, or the 23rd of June in 10 years time

It would be far more unbiased and worthwhile for you to say those who cannot afford to buy a 'family sized home' in London will still not be able to afford one in London in any time frame they care about.

You are intentionally giving false hope and misleading people with it

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the excessive population is doing harm to the people of the UK

That is purely your opinion I take the view that we don't have an excessive population and that another 15 million people would be a lot better than 15 million fewer people. I would prefer it if it was a baby boom but since the locals are not breeding and it might soon become dire then its net positive migration.

the situation in the 18th century is not relavant : after all there was no national electricity grid then.

well done correct !

We no longer need a huge population and army to protect ourselves. But Good thing your great grand father in 1800 didn't try to limit the excessive population as about 5/6ths of us wouldn't be alive if he was successful

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

you have often tried to frame that voting out would help fix the woes of those who cant afford family homes in London yet you know full well that almost all the people who cannot afford to buy a 'family sized home' in London today wont be able to afford one on the 23rd of June this year, or the 23rd of June in 5 years time, or the 23rd of June in 10 years time

It would be far more unbiased and worthwhile for you to say those who cannot afford to buy a 'family sized home' in London will still not be able to afford one in London in any time frame they care about.

You are intentionally giving false hope and misleading people with it

If you actually read what I post, you will find it difficult to see a reference to 'afford to buy'
rather you will see a reference to be 'able to live in'
My wish is for the population of London to fall or at least stabalise whilst supply will increase; so the availaity of homes better matches the demand.
If a total ban of immigration above say 10,000 then I believe that supply demand match will improve and prices would actually fall.
I don't expect to see any quick and wonderful solutions but a gradual change in the right direction.

It would be far more unbiased, honest and worthwhile of you to say things are bad and you are certain they will get worse and worse without controls on immigration. You can add, if you wish that you don't give a damn as you are doing very nicely.

Rinoa

Just watched Cameron being interviewed on Yorkshire ITV tea-time news. Must be getting desperate if he comes up here. They gave him a right grilling too, pointing out that nobody believes him anymore as he's told so many lies.

I think people are beginning to notice.

BobQ

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.

So you think we need to proceed on the basis of blind faith?

Control yes, but there will still be the same numbers and types of job that are vacant and that need filling. Surely this means that we just see an increase in non-EU immigration. Points based systems are fine but they collapse the first time we need some unskilled fruit pickers. Of course we could just stop growing fruit.

- 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.

So we have the same unskilled workers but instead they come from English speaking nations? You seem to be assuming all migrants will settle rather than work for a year and go home.

So what does the bold text mean? Which people will meet your test of cultural background?

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.

This would be a policy that says only graduates from a good commonwealth university can pick our fruit? Obviously not but what is your solution (policy) for temporary farm workers?

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.

What will drive the need for immigration is the number of jobs we cannot fill. This policy has disaster written all over it, however well intentioned this policy is. The fact is some industries rely on skills we seem to have decided that it is beneath our dignity to do or we cannot be bothered to train people to do. A policy will not solve that.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

So you think we need to proceed on the basis of blind faith?

Control yes, but there will still be the same numbers and types of job that are vacant and that need filling. Surely this means that we just see an increase in non-EU immigration. Points based systems are fine but they collapse the first time we need some unskilled fruit pickers. Of course we could just stop growing fruit.



So we have the same unskilled workers but instead they come from English speaking nations? You seem to be assuming all migrants will settle rather than work for a year and go home.

So what does the bold text mean? Which people will meet your test of cultural background?



This would be a policy that says only graduates from a good commonwealth university can pick our fruit? Obviously not but what is your solution (policy) for temporary farm workers?



What will drive the need for immigration is the number of jobs we cannot fill. This policy has disaster written all over it, however well intentioned this policy is. The fact is some industries rely on skills we seem to have decided that it is beneath our dignity to do or we cannot be bothered to train people to do. A policy will not solve that.

there ara NO jobs in the UK that need filling by immigration, (except maybe that of PM)