If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course there isn't

if every family of four shared their 3 be semi with 2 other families there would be masses of spare homes
and of course the housing stock would be used more efficiently
and we could then easily house another 50 million without building a single property.

everyone would enjoy the benefits of closer friendships and the 'buss' of the city

there is no housing crisis

2.35 people per property
for most the country homes cheaper to buy than to rent social homes off the council

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

As they always say, unless it's written on the side of a bus, it isn't worth much. Or something like that, right?

Still waiting for you to acknowledge that Dyson was talking poppycock.

He says:

"Well, I remember a time before 1973 when we joined the European Union when I was working in France - so before we were in Europe we could go and work in Europe and Europeans could come and work here," he answered.
"I hope that continues to exist. And if it doesn't, it opens the possibility to hire people from outside of Europe.
"We can employ Chinese engineers, Singaporean engineers, American engineers which we can't do at the moment."

I have no idea why he would think either the UK in general or in particular Dyson cannot employ Chinese, Singaporean or American engineers. Kamal probably should have pushed for clarity on that as it's not clear who (UK / Dyson) he's referring to or why he thinks that. I wouldn't have thought Sir Dyson was unintelligent so there must be a reason why he thinks this in a particular context, I couldn't tell you whether or not I agree with him on that either as I've no idea why he's said it. Taking the statement as Kamal has written it (I've not watched the video, I'm eating an Italian BMT sub for lunch and typing between bites) it does come across as 'poppycock' I agree with you.

I don't disagree with what he says about it being in the interest of the UK and the EU not to have punitive tariffs in place, but if there are, so be it, and if free movement continues or ends, so be it. It won't be the end of the world. We'll have a far greater opportunity in the wider world, which I think was the general message he was trying to convey.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

The twist comes when those people, who supposedly did this, are on the internet every day telling others to do the same

Probably because almost all the people who have done this over the last 20 or 30 years have seen that decision become one of the best decisions they ever made.

Crashy_Time wrote: »

that then raises suspicions towards the real motive

It is the HPC crowd who 13 years ago got it completely and demonstrably wrong yet still keep telling everyone a monumental crash is "just around the corner" that you should regard as having suspicious motives...

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I choose to read it as many Brits are living beyond their means to show an outward appearance of affluence

That's because you (and most of the HPC crowd) are a "glass half empty" type of person, most homeowners look at it as a "glass half full."

Kohoutek

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't disagree with what he says about it being in the interest of the UK and the EU not to have punitive tariffs in place, but if there are, so be it, and if free movement continues or ends, so be it. It won't be the end of the world. We'll have a far greater opportunity in the wider world, which I think was the general message he was trying to put across.

The fact that it may become harder for UK industry to do business in the EU doesn't mean it will become easier to do business in the wider world.

What British industries and what markets do you have in mind when you say greater opportunities in the wider world?

Mortgagefreeman

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't believe in Juncker's call for an European army.

Politicians eh! Take them with a large pinch of salt.

Or in Juncker's case a shed load of booze.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/14/jean-claude-juncker-denies-alcohol-problem-during-interview-in-w/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

CLAPTON

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

I certainly believe that we're on a trendline towards that. Whether or not it transpires to actually be one third I don't know (I've not asked all of them) but when you consider that,

• The average age of GPs is rising,
• That more GPs are retiring earlier (the average retirement age of GPs is 59),
• That workload is increasing, due to an aging population - which will affect work-life balance,
• That we aren't recruiting enough young GPs,
• That a not-insiginificant (and rising) number of the GPs that we do recruit either leave the profession early or emigrate,
• That the cost of training is increasing,
• The fact that we aren't training / recruiting enough GPs is likely to increase pressure on existing GPs,

I'd be inclined to think that we're on a trajectory for a significant shortfall of GPs without some form of intervention. Like I say, I'm not sure what figure that will ultimately be, and I don't dispute that the BMA may well be presenting a 'worst case scenario', but as I mentioned earlier, there hasn't to my knowledge been any meaningful counter-argument to that claim.

we seem to have drifted from saying that 9 million immigrants have no impact on the health service but no matter, the general issue of the problems in the NHS is interesting.

it would be useful to have more info on why numbers applying to be GPs seem to be falling but as the report says

He said: ‘We do not know why the figures have gone down. We want to know whether this is a one-off, or is a general trend of numbers going down? If it is, we are in big trouble.

of course, the profession refusing to discuss some of the important factors doesn't help analysis.

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver wrote: »

Probably because almost all the people who have done this over the last 20 or 30 years have seen that decision become one of the best decisions they ever made.



It is the HPC crowd who 13 years ago got it completely and demonstrably wrong yet still keep telling everyone a monumental crash is "just around the corner" that you should regard as having suspicious motives...

It`s those who made the decision two or three years ago that need to worry, and not everyone who bought decades ago can cash out at a price they would like and at time they would like, that is the nature of a distorted dysfunctional property bubble.

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver wrote: »

That's because you (and most of the HPC crowd) are a "glass half empty" type of person, most homeowners look at it as a "glass half full."

Debt is debt, and illiquid asset is an illiquid asset, doesn`t matter how full or empty your glasses are to see that.

TrickyTree83

Kohoutek wrote: »

The fact that it may become harder for UK industry to do business in the EU doesn't mean it will become easier to do business in the wider world.

What British industries and what markets do you have in mind when you say greater opportunities in the wider world?

I was about to set off on a massive exercise of typing loads of text that probably no one would read, linking to URL's all over the internet to try and demonstrate it to you when it occurred to me that I don't need to. That my preferred stance could be summed up by referencing two countries, Norway and Switzerland. Now they're not without their own problems and our country is different to theirs I admit, but it cannot be argued against that they do very well out of their current arrangements. We should aim for something similar.