If we vote for Brexit what happens

Marktheshark

gfplux wrote: »

As a voter (voted) to remain I understand the principle of the Brexit argument.
Take back control, Britain is strong, Britain is great.
My problem is who will be clever and selfless enough to do this.
I frankly have little faith in the leading Politiciens on the side of Brexit being those with the character to do the job. Perhaps Micheal Gove who might be clever enough but will be part of a Coalition of selfish politicians who will cancel each other out.
A number of the problems mentioned lie at the doors of successive British Governments who could have but did not attempt to solve those problems in the past.
If the result is Brexit I of course will be dissapointed and sad. However Britain will then enter that period of opportunity so often mentioned on this thread and by the leaders of the Brexit campaign.
To paraphrase that famous Chinese phrase "You will be living in interesting times"
Good Luck

Another taken in by the "personalties" put up by the state.
You have to hand it to them, this con trick is working and it is drawing people away from the issue as they play vote for your favourite / least favourite politician.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

The UK infrastructure is very good for each additional 1% in population we dont actually need 1% more infrastructure we need a lot less than 1% what that means is clearly that the argument that 'infrastructure is full and building more is crippling so no immigrants please' falls down.

1% more infrastructure doesn't cost 1% more
sometimes 1% more demand causes a lot more than 1% more supply
1% more demand for essential imports may produce 0% more exports.
extra supply often has long lead times.

the issue to me is partly pragmatic : are the people of the UK better off in real everyday terms?
are young people in London able to live in family sized home if they wish to start a family?

if the theeory that more people produce more wealth why doesn't it seem to apply in Spain, Greece, Italy, India Chile, Indonesia etc
why is there unemplyment anywhere if people produce their own wealth 'automatically'?

and of course there are other non economic reasons : do I want London to be a foreign country within 20 years?
a smaller populations preserves that which I wish to be preserved

globalds

cells wrote: »

The UK infrastructure is very good for each additional 1% in population we dont actually need 1% more infrastructure we need a lot less than 1% what that means is clearly that the argument that 'infrastructure is full and building more is crippling so no immigrants please' falls down.

Sounds good until you think realistically how the cost of adding extra infrastructure works.
Do you think adding 1% to the London underground is going to in any way be a cost of 1% of the entire construction cost of LU ?

Or building a new primary school or Hospital in London will be covered by the economic activity of the new arrivals ?

Infrastructure costs can rise at staggering levels.
Planned events can be costed... uncontrolled anything, usually arrives with a surprisingly large bill once the dust settles .
The argument for an open door policy is profoundly naive.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

For me the free movement of labour idea is great. It would mean we would know how many are coming and where and although we wouldn't have control we would get the greater ability to plan which is where my biggest issue is with the current uncontrolled migration.

Maybe thus idea is also trying to address the deficiencies of the Schengen Area by allowing other nations to get out of paying social benefits or providing housing to those who do not have a job offer and giving that nation the option to institute border checks.

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

See my post you quoted. The words leading up to the ?

sorry I didn't realise you were being a pratt.
no I don't support breeding control

and in case you wish to ask how I reconcile 'no breeding controls' with immigration control, I am a liberterian democrat that believes achieving things in a pragmatic way.
breeding controls are inappropriate in our society, immigration controls aren't.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Interesting.

But its entirely credible that such a deal might be contemplated by some.

Of course if it had traction with some other members it may have been possible to do such a deal within the EU!

Such a deal was clearly not possible, since our esteemed leader was told to shove it when the question of limitations to free movement was raised in his 'renegotiation'.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

Such a deal was clearly not possible, since our esteemed leader was told to shove it when the question of limitations to free movement was raised in his 'renegotiation'.

Maybe it has become possible since the EU realised that the vote was becoming quite close.

I think this is a game of Russian Roulette with half the chambers full

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe it has become possible since the EU realised that the vote was becoming quite close.

I think this is a game of Russian Roulette with half the chambers full

Well obviously. That is standard modus operandi for the EU.

Filo25

New Orb poll out this evening

Leave 55 previously 51
Remain 45 previously 49

Makes me very glad I put some more cash on Leave yesterday!

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

1% more infrastructure doesn't cost 1% more
sometimes 1% more demand causes a lot more than 1% more supply
1% more demand for essential imports may produce 0% more exports.
extra supply often has long lead times.

the issue to me is partly pragmatic : are the people of the UK better off in real everyday terms?
are young people in London able to live in family sized home if they wish to start a family?

if the theeory that more people produce more wealth why doesn't it seem to apply in Spain, Greece, Italy, India Chile, Indonesia etc
why is there unemplyment anywhere if people produce their own wealth 'automatically'?

and of course there are other non economic reasons : do I want London to be a foreign country within 20 years?
a smaller populations preserves that which I wish to be preserved

If the natives are going towards 1 child per women what exactly are you going to preserve in a few generations time?

without a doubt, and I think you know this to be true but wont admit it here, a higher population allows higher productivity. The whole point of 'free trade' is to in effect allow a higher 'virtual' population

Imagine a small island with 10,000 people. can they afford to allocate 5,000 people to research and develop medicines? No. Jump to a nation of 10 million and yes they can allocate 5,000 to that task.

Think of a nation say England, can it allocate £170 billion and 1/10rd of its workforce into a space program? No not really. What about a country of 300 million like say the USA can they allocate 3 million people and £170B into developing space tech. yes.


The bigger the population the more specialization that is possible and the more specialization the higher the productivity wealth and well being.

Now free trade allows the same. If 10,000 islands of 10,000 population have free trade then one island could potentially allocate half its workforce to drugs R&D and trade that for the goods and services they cant produce as they have allocated most of their resources to that task.

So free trade somewhat relieves the need for higher population (except worldwide but thats another discussion).


But there are also local factors where free trade does not help in this regard and you need a higher local population. For example a country of 5 million will have a more dificult time building out a cheap affordable grid v a country of 50 million and the country of 500 million will have the best of all of them. The reason is experience. The first country maybe only needs 2 power stations the next 20 and the last 200 the country with 200 to build is going to have a better cost and productivity per unit than the country with 2 to build