If we vote for Brexit what happens

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

There will be SO MUCH hot air and leaks from all sides non of us will know what is true and what is false.

The best thing about Article 50 is the 2 year time limit.

If it were open ended they would never agree.

We know Mr Juncker doesn't like referendums. It shall be interesting to see his response to the upcoming Hungarian referendum on migrant quotas.

shortcrust

divadee wrote: »

Most people buy a property for a home!!! Something to call their own. We have just bought a property after our landlord sold our rented place. Our mortgage is £100 cheaper, we can do what we want to it, we don't have inspections every 3 months, we don't have to worry about every little thing and most importantly to us. It's security and our home. Yea if it makes money from house price rises, brilliant. If not it's still our home.

My thinking exactly. I'm not going to worry in 25 years time that house prices crashed in 2017. I'm going to be happy that I have a home that I love that's all mine.

Mortgagefreeman

kabayiri wrote: »

We know Mr Juncker doesn't like referendums.

It interferes with his breakfast cognac.

iantojones40

glasgowdan wrote: »

What unfortunate position's that? The part where I own 70% of my new home, where mortgage payments are 13% of our take home pay and 1/3 that of similar rentals, where our mortgage will be paid off in 5 years, I'm self employed and work around 20hrs a week over the year or the part where I've the most beautiful wee boy the world has ever seen, a perfect wife and a baby girl due in 3 months?

My troll detector was beeping a long time ago, I know your ploy don't worry!

I don't think I've ever come across anybody on the internet or even in "real life" who is as desperate as you are to convince everyone what a perfect life you have, some of your posts are quite bizarre.

For somebody who claims to be in such a secure and comfortable position you seem to be terrified about the prospect of anything other than never ending rampant hpi for ever and ever.

If, and that's a BIG IF, you genuinely are in the position you claim to be in then you are extremely atypical of anyone who has purchased s home in recent years and you must have some truly exceptional circumstances, either a huge deposit or a massive income in relation to your local house prices, so for you to be devoting so much time and effort to encouraging people to buy, buy, BUY! Regardless of the cost is highly irresponsible of you

Conrad

In case a Remainer posts up the news about London potentially loosing Euro clearing business, here are some thoughts;

UK, especially after Brexit, is far more nimble, able towards lighter touch less intrusive regulation and could easily cut corporate taxes.

Most FS business’s know that the EU faces many challenges and great uncertainty, to include potential referenda.

Taxes on business are higher and with UK contributions to cease, will only go up


All this hysteria will settle down as it dawns Britain is a far more investor friendly location

28 Feb 2016 - Hedge funds seek refuge from unfair European regulations

iantojones40

divadee wrote: »

Most people buy a property for a home!!! Something to call their own. We have just bought a property after our landlord sold our rented place. Our mortgage is £100 cheaper, we can do what we want to it, we don't have inspections every 3 months, we don't have to worry about every little thing and most importantly to us. It's security and our home. Yea if it makes money from house price rises, brilliant. If not it's still our home.

I appreciate this is a rather difficult concept for the hard of thinking to grasp, but you do realise that all other houses will equally have "brilliant" price rises so you won't be in any better position at all, in fact it will cost you more if you wish to trade up to a bigger house or nicer area, or are you hoping that your house will be the only one on the market to have a "brilliant" rise in price?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Immigrants largely remove the need for increasing productivity as cheap labour is an adequate substitute in many applications.

this is nonsense for multiple reasons. Productivity improvements are global not just national or local. The self drive car will come to the whole world irrespective of what we do on this island and how much migrants we have or not. And even the cheapest human is far more expensive most robots and software. you then completely ignore the productivity of a higher population. The productivvity of a tesco store or a train station is partially dependent on how many people make use of it. So when my local overground station useage went up 20x its productivity massively increased. The same or nearly the same land, electricity, staff, security, cleaning and wear and tear now spread across 20 people means the station is more productive much more

I have to say your patronising discription of jobs that often involving caring for the sick, old, young, disabled, injured as 'crap', is deeply offensive and is insulting to the people that do these vital jobs.

cry me a river
I didnt say they were crap or that the outcome/need of their roles is crap. Clearly what I mean is the remuneration for the effort is crap

The people who do these jobs often enjoy doing them and feel they are making a significant contribution to the quality of life of the people of the UK.

sure but they are still paid crap

The more important question is, do you and the working class know that without the migrants doing the crap jobs the local working class 'kids' will have to do them

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

this is nonsense for multiple reasons. Productivity improvements are global not just national or local. The self drive car will come to the whole world irrespective of what we do on this island and how much migrants we have or not. And even the cheapest human is far more expensive most robots and software. you then completely ignore the productivity of a higher population. The productivvity of a tesco store or a train station is partially dependent on how many people make use of it. So when my local overground station useage went up 20x its productivity massively increased. The same or nearly the same land, electricity, staff, security, cleaning and wear and tear now spread across 20 people means the station is more productive much more

there are clearly productivity opportunities due to scale in some situations.
(probably why virtually all supermarkets have stopped building new large stores.)
clearly there is benefit in using 'spare' capacity where available and in some situations.

If your higher population good, lower population bad were true, then it would be trivial to show a scatter graph of population size and gdp per capita to prove your point conclusively.

There are clearly disadvantges to large numbers :
although in your narrow minded 'GDP is a god' world a flat share is NOT the equivalent of a nice house: a journey to work of an hour is NOT the same as one of half hour.
In many situation a large population reduces the quality of life of the people and in London and the SE we have that situations.

cry me a river
I didnt say they were crap or that the outcome/need of their roles is crap. Clearly what I mean is the remuneration for the effort is crap

sure but they are still paid crap

Don't cry for anyone ; just give the respect that they deserve for doing a worthwhile and necessary job ; that who knows, may save your or a member of your families life one day.

The more important question is, do you and the working class know that without the migrants doing the crap jobs the local working class 'kids' will have to do them

Again you show a pretty vile attitude to doing worthwhile work : I've no idea, except extreme racism, why you think it Ok for an immigrant to do a job but not a native born person.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are clearly productivity opportunities due to scale in some situations.
(probably why virtually all supermarkets have stopped building new large stores.)
clearly there is benefit in using 'spare' capacity where available and in some situations.

If your higher population good, lower population bad were true, then it would be trivial to show a scatter graph of population size and gdp per capita to prove your point conclusively.

There are clearly disadvantges to large numbers :
although in your narrow minded 'GDP is a god' world a flat share is NOT the equivalent of a nice house: a journey to work of an hour is NOT the same as one of half hour.
In many situation a large population reduces the quality of life of the people and in London and the SE we have that situations.


Don't cry for anyone ; just give the respect that they deserve for doing a worthwhile and necessary job ; that who knows, may save your or a member of your families life one day.


Again you show a pretty vile attitude to doing worthwhile work : I've no idea, except extreme racism, why you think it Ok for an immigrant to do a job but not a native born person.

you do put in a good amount of effort to spin things

I did not say the immigrants should do the crap jobs and we shouldn't. I simply observe that they are the jobs a lot of them do do because they are primarily limited by language. If you then know the simple fact that long term unemployment is about 1% irrespective of the migrants its simple mathematics to conclude that the foreigners doing the crap jobs are displacing locals that would be doing those jobs into less crap less poorly paid jobs. Something you ignore every time I highlight it and something most people simply dont know about.

With regards to longer drive times and NHS wwaiting times. I;ve lived in London for decades and its as good/bad as it ever was. The NHS would be in a worse position without the migrations paying over the odds in taxes v spending. Its all good thinking without a million working migrants thats a million fewer peoples healthcare but at the same time its also about £20 billion less into the public purse.

You might also want to look into middlesborough. a town where the population has been falling since about 2001. Going off what you've been teaching us youd think it was the land of milk and honey and no NHS waiting times. But despite London and its many migrants sending middlesborough baskets of money the town is still seeing people leave. Why?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

you do put in a good amount of effort to spin things


I did not say the immigrants should do the crap jobs and we shouldn't. I simply observe that they are the jobs a lot of them do do because they are primarily limited by language.

clearly nonsense : you can't posssibly be serious

If you then know the simple fact that long term unemployment is about 1% irrespective of the migrants its simple mathematics to conclude that the foreigners doing the crap jobs are displacing locals that would be doing those jobs into less crap less poorly paid jobs. Something you ignore every time I highlight it and something most people simply dont know about.

Its only your bigoted, patronising and offensive attitude that calls these worthwhile and essential jobs 'crap'.

Simply maths shows that a great many migrants are doing work that YOU don't define as 'crap' so proves they are taking jobs that native born could have filled (always allowing for the 1:1 jobs they create to service themlseves). The availability of endless labour , even thoufh it won't stop driverless cars being developed, does discourage many productivity improvement that would otherwise be developed, which would improve our lives and increase wages.

With regards to longer drive times and NHS wwaiting times. I;ve lived in London for decades and its as good/bad as it ever was. The NHS would be in a worse position without the migrations paying over the odds in taxes v spending. Its all good thinking without a million working migrants thats a million fewer peoples healthcare but at the same time its also about £20 billion less into the public purse.

migrants don't pay over the odds in taxes : you believe they mainly have low paid jobs (the one's you call crap) so clearly don't get anywhere near paying a proportionate share of tax, which is mainly paid by the higher paid.

You might also want to look into middlesborough. a town where the population has been falling since about 2001. Going off what you've been teaching us youd think it was the land of milk and honey and no NHS waiting times. But despite London and its many migrants sending middlesborough baskets of money the town is still seeing people leave. Why?

No idea about middlesborough but cities rise and decline for many reasons. Money will be short there as we have to fund the huge costs of supporting the rise in population caused partly by immigration.