If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

I've not seen much evidence of 'sore losing' over the past few pages.

You say that "Brexit will happen" but what I think most people are concerned with is exactly what Brexit will look like. I'm one of those.

I want to get on with planning the next stage of my life, and I think that my family and I will prosper more in an area that has free movement of people and free market access - essentially I quite like idea of having the freedom to be able to live and work where I feel is best for me and my family.

If the intention of Govt is to negotiate this away, then I'd quite like to know so that I can plan accordingly.

The old armchair warrior threat of leaving the country for somewhere better. I bet you won't. In any event we will still have immigration in the same way Canada does, and I don't hear your kin saying Canada is awful without free movement.

One day your kids will want a home of thier own, with unlimited immigration that becomes ever harder, and the more homes and resource you build, the more immigration you attract so in the end your idea of a pleasant land would be unending g development, consumption, the hum of humanity, enviromental degradation and ever more intensive agriculture. I think personally that is an entirely irresponsible and quite narrow minded outlook.

Lastly lots of less developed nations suffer badly by way of de population, maybe just for once imagine the effects this has on thier lack of provision for vulnerable abused kids, and old ladies with dementia as they have big skills and provision gaps
Over entitled selfish Brits celebrate skills flight form truly vulnerable societies, and then wonder why Oxfam need to do appeals for those place, lol

Where are off to, France? You can then legit to Germany when FRexit happens

Conrad

mwpt wrote: »

Pretty much my feelings. Although I have access to the EU anyway with an EU passport, but my partner currently doesn't (she could apply for one).

With no ill wishes toward the UK, at this stage I would not mind if finance IT (or other IT) shifted to Europe as I would quite enjoy a change. I'd just like to know sooner rather than later because I'm at the point in my life where certain decisions need to be taken.

The rise of the far right will be interesting, don't moan once you're there though, you want free movement, you must accept the consequences including extreme political responses

glasgowdan

He thinks people who choose to take out a mortgage so their family can enjoy a nice secure home to grow up in are somehow doing it out of some warped necessity to owe money. It's a very simplistic viewpoint, but when's being wrong ever mattered to crash legend?

It's like saying people who drive cars are addicted to the risk of road traffic accidents.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

You will be very welcome in Luxembourg.

Luxembourg owes everything to being a tax cheat on an industrial scale and a EU benefits sponger on an equally grand scale. But good to milk it dry whilst one can.

michaels

Good to now that there is not a problem for which the answer is not more Europe.

Puts a lie to the claim that remain was a vote for the status quo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

whatmichaelsays

Conrad wrote: »

The old armchair warrior threat of leaving the country for somewhere better. I bet you won't. In any event we will still have immigration in the same way Canada does, and I don't hear your kin saying Canada is awful without free movement.

One day your kids will want a home of thier own, with unlimited immigration that becomes ever harder, and the more homes and resource you build, the more immigration you attract so in the end your idea of a pleasant land would be unending g development, consumption, the hum of humanity, enviromental degradation and ever more intensive agriculture. I think personally that is an entirely irresponsible and quite narrow minded outlook.

Lastly lots of less developed nations suffer badly by way of de population, maybe just for once imagine the effects this has on thier lack of provision for vulnerable abused kids, and old ladies with dementia as they have big skills and provision gaps
Over entitled selfish Brits celebrate skills flight form truly vulnerable societies, and then wonder why Oxfam need to do appeals for those place, lol

Where are off to, France? You can then legit to Germany when FRexit happens

Not sure why you've taken such a defensive tone there.

I'll ultimately go where I feel the work opportunities are and where I can achieve the optimum quality of life for my and my family. I work in digital industries - I can do my job pretty much anywhere where I have a laptop and a WiFi signal.

Both my wife and I have worked abroad before (both inside and outside the EU) and neither of us have any qualms about moving again. Sure, our Brexit-voting parents might dislike the idea of their grandson living overseas, but I'm not going to allow myself to be held back to appease the other crabs in the bucket if I feel it disadvantages my family and I.

Dublin, Amsterdam and numerous cities in Germany have strong digital sectors - I've no issue going to any of those areas. And yes, I may consider Canada - it may not have free movement, but free movement isn't the be-all and end-all. The issue is about quality of life and in my view, as somebody living in the UK, free movement and free market access is important to that. I appreciate that others disagree, which is why I feel some clarity is needed on the part of government as to what they are prepared to negotiate for, and negotiate away.

As for your doom-mongering, I simply don't buy it. There are problems surrounding key infrastructure in the UK, but I believe that migration is a very small part (but a very convenient lightning rod) of a very big picture. The bigger issue, in my view, is chronic an underinvestment in services, infrastructure and skills that is unrelated to migration.

michaels

Bayer but up Monsanto (big US bio-engineering group who champion GM) - how long till we see a change in the EU opposition to GM crops?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37361556

kabayiri

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

...
As for your doom-mongering, I simply don't buy it. There are problems surrounding key infrastructure in the UK, but I believe that migration is a very small part (but a very convenient lightning rod) of a very big picture. The bigger issue, in my view, is chronic an underinvestment in services, infrastructure and skills that is unrelated to migration.

I'd agree with this to an extent, but would add that the referendum showed a very patchy situation across the country.

Scotland as a whole attracted just 8K of the EU migrants in the last set of figures. That's a negligible impact really.

East of England has seen a lot of change. So has London but it has far more money spent on infrastructure compared with places in the NE. You need to commit to upfront investment to deal with change.

It does not look like recent governments have been spending the proceeds of migration back into the places which clearly need the help.

whatmichaelsays

kabayiri wrote: »

I'd agree with this to an extent, but would add that the referendum showed a very patchy situation across the country.

Scotland as a whole attracted just 8K of the EU migrants in the last set of figures. That's a negligible impact really.

East of England has seen a lot of change. So has London but it has far more money spent on infrastructure compared with places in the NE. You need to commit to upfront investment to deal with change.

It does not look like recent governments have been spending the proceeds of migration back into the places which clearly need the help.

I haven't got time to dig out the stats, but I'm sure it was largely the case (aside from a few outliers) that the areas that tended to vote most heavily for Brexit were the ones that were least impacted by migration.

As for the infrastructure argument, for me the classic one is GPs. I've heard the argument thousands of times that the reason you can't get a GP appointment is because of "all them immigrants".

Of course, I would argue that being in a position where around one third of our GPs plan to retire by 2020, coupled with 40% of GP training places are going unfilled (meaning that we will have around 1,000 fewer GPs each year than the 3,500 target), is a much bigger reason for the problem of long waiting times to see a GP.

Unfortunately, solving that problem requires some effort and some critical thinking - it's much easier and much more populist to just blame those foreigners again.

michaels

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

I haven't got time to dig out the stats, but I'm sure it was largely the case (aside from a few outliers) that the areas that tended to vote most heavily for Brexit were the ones that were least impacted by migration.

As for the infrastructure argument, for me the classic one is GPs. I've heard the argument thousands of times that the reason you can't get a GP appointment is because of "all them immigrants".

Of course, I would argue that being in a position where around one third of our GPs plan to retire by 2020, coupled with 40% of GP training places are going unfilled (meaning that we will have around 1,000 fewer GPs each year than the 3,500 target), is a much bigger reason for the problem of long waiting times to see a GP.

Unfortunately, solving that problem requires some effort and some critical thinking - it's much easier and much more populist to just blame those foreigners again.

But if we assume that politically there is a maximum number of migrants we can take each year (even before considering infrastructure such as housing) surely it makes more sense if we can choose to admit more Australian GPs and fewer Romanian car wash operatives within this overall total?