If we vote for Brexit what happens

zagubov

Switzerland has far more immigration (proportionally) than the UK but much lower unemployment.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Switzerland has far more immigration (proportionally) than the UK but much lower unemployment.

spain has far more immigrants (proportionately) than the UK and a higher unemployment rate

chucknorris

mayonnaise wrote: »

I can imagine they (Luxembourg) wouldn't be too upset about a brexit.



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/brexit-would-lead-to-loss-of-100000-bank-jobs-says-city-a3124661.html

If we choose to vote ourselves into irrelevance, others will gladly pick up where we left.

Yeah I read a similar article to that earlier (link below), but it also seemed to imply that overall they would still favour the UK staying in.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/03/luxembourg-britain-brexit-referendum-eu

cells

michaels wrote: »

But at what cost in quality of experience for station users? I bet you now are much more likely to queue for the ticket machines and footbridge to change platforms and much less likely to have somewhere to sit when waiting for a train. Sure all small things but they all mount up.

the oyster system means for most people its very easy. Even on much busier stations when I need to buy a ticket my wait times are often zero (one or more machines available) or very low in the minute or two time frame.

Is the experience better for the station? yes it is. having too few people is a bad experience do you fell more safe on a station or line with a few dozen people or one where its you and some dodgy looking fella staring at you.

having somewhere to sit. for real that is your possible lack of infrastructure now? building seats is now the impossible infrastructure project?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

it would seem that there is a difference of view between one that says actually there is no shortage of housing , health care, transport infrastructure, schooling or in any of our essential service. Furthermore the cost of upgrading to cater for extra millions that will arrive, is trivial. On the other hand some would argue the opposite.
To be fair minded, I had the pleasure of visiting Durness recently and I have to say that my observations there do add weight to your views although I did think the train station could do with a little investment.

and to be fair back to you, the single biggest infrastructure project in the UK and the world is housing. and I can accept there is a problem in London in that house prices are high. I dont however think its a problem that is solely down to EU migrants nor would leaving the EU solve the problem. It might make things marginally better in that future prices might be a tad lower but its not going to take average price London of today of about £550,000 towards a more 'affordable' £100,000 like in the north.

The solution to the London housing infrastructure problem is to shrink the ~850,000 social poor homes towards ~250,000 and move the difference out towards rEngland over a period of 25 years. You would need something like that to make London more affordable either in or out of the EU

all other infrastructure is quite easy to build or improve. the one other possible exception is city roads. technology might work there too with things like uber poll or its self drive equivalent

cells

Rinoa wrote: »

That's a clever analogy.

Train stations platforms are built long and wide for obvious reasons and don't need to be lengthened if there are 20 times more passengers. Of course, this wouldn't work for a hospital where, if there is a need for twice as many beds, we need to double the size of the hospital.

it does not need to work for everything, the fact that it works for most things means those things are cheaper and better than they would otherwise be which leaves you with the resources to put into say hospitals.

Also even hospitals benefit from technology and advancement. lets say for example key hole surgery. Before that was available people would i assume be down for longer and in a worse shape after an op having to stay more days post op in hospital whereas today they may be discharged the same day.

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

The solution to the London housing infrastructure problem is to shrink the ~850,000 social poor homes towards ~250,000 and move the difference out towards rEngland over a period of 25 years. You would need something like that to make London more affordable either in or out of the EU

Wouldn't that be gentrification?

What about all those people who have family, friends, jobs and their lives in London but live in this social housing?

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Wouldn't that be gentrification?

What about all those people who have family, friends, jobs and their lives in London but live in this social housing?

what about the private renter in London that has all of those things but is still 'forced' to move further out for economic reasons or even the homeowner. Why should the social housed tenants be the only special case?

and it not need be forced the social homes especially in inner London can be sold off as they become vacant as tenants die or relocate. I think that figure is about 40,000 a year in London.

Also London is a negative for the poor. The social home tenants might be ok for now but what about when the kids grow up and need housing themselves? there are no more social house lotto tickets available and to buy/rent in London is too expensive for the poor. Its better for people on lower paid jobs to make the move to stoke-on-trent sooner rather than later

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

and to be fair back to you, the single biggest infrastructure project in the UK and the world is housing. and I can accept there is a problem in London in that house prices are high. I dont however think its a problem that is solely down to EU migrants nor would leaving the EU solve the problem. It might make things marginally better in that future prices might be a tad lower but its not going to take average price London of today of about £550,000 towards a more 'affordable' £100,000 like in the north.

The solution to the London housing infrastructure problem is to shrink the ~850,000 social poor homes towards ~250,000 and move the difference out towards rEngland over a period of 25 years. You would need something like that to make London more affordable either in or out of the EU

all other infrastructure is quite easy to build or improve. the one other possible exception is city roads. technology might work there too with things like uber poll or its self drive equivalent

I fully accept that the housing problems in London are not soley due to the 3-4 million foreign born people that live there.
However I do think that 3-4 million foreign born does have an impact of the available of housing for UK born people.

your suggestion of moving 400,000 social poor may have merits but doesn't really address the issue either immediately or longer term.

I wish to provide a better life for UK born people in favour of foreign born people.
I also wish to retain the culture and Uk traditions associated with the UK.

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

what about the private renter in London that has all of those things but is still 'forced' to move further out for economic reasons or even the homeowner. Why should the social housed tenants be the only special case?

and it not need be forced the social homes especially in inner London can be sold off as they become vacant as tenants die or relocate. I think that figure is about 40,000 a year in London.

Also London is a negative for the poor. The social home tenants might be ok for now but what about when the kids grow up and need housing themselves? there are no more social house lotto tickets available and to buy/rent in London is too expensive for the poor. Its better for people on lower paid jobs to make the move to stoke-on-trent sooner rather than later

I'd consider myself a conservative voter but this is beyond the pale even for me. I can understand the financial problems you're describing but uprooting these people surely isn't the answer? Providing them with the opportunities should be, no?

This reads to me like "lets move all the undesirables to the rest of the UK, they'll be living side by side with similar people out there".