If we vote for Brexit what happens

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

If you can point to any of my postings that suggest I am (remote) out of touch from what ordinary people feel and experience then do so. I suggest that you and I are just as much out of touch as in touch.
Frankly if the posters on this thread had to be qualified to express the opinions they do perhaps there would be a lot less postings.
...

This board is overwhelmingly London-centric.

So yes, I'd say there are a number of views out of touch with ordinary people in the poorer parts of the country.

I travel quite a lot. It doesn't take much to see big differences between places around London and the Fylde coast or Scarborough.

If Europe is a financial benefit, it does not look like much of that benefit is flowing out to the regions.

Migrants know this. They flock overwhelmingly to places where they have a foothold or London/SE.

Hamish's view on people in poor parts of the UK is clear. He thinks they should move.

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

This board is overwhelmingly London-centric.

So yes, I'd say there are a number of views out of touch with ordinary people in the poorer parts of the country.

I travel quite a lot. It doesn't take much to see big differences between places around London and the Fylde coast or Scarborough.

If Europe is a financial benefit, it does not look like much of that benefit is flowing out to the regions.

Migrants know this. They flock overwhelmingly to places where they have a foothold or London/SE.

Hamish's view on people in poor parts of the UK is clear. He thinks they should move.

There is a lot of fiscal distribution within the uk so even if you thought all the benefit was going to London you should accept that the taxes raised there are spent nationally quite evenly

However I think you are mistaken, if the migration since 2004 had not happened I think we would still have seen London grow quite rapidly by draining the population(or population growth) of the other regions. You can see this in countries which have seen falling populations. Often the capital city does not decline or declines much less than the national decline. That is to say the decline would have been even worse.

You do highlight a fact which is that London had grown more than the regions over the last 20 years but again that was happening before 2004. Its not the fault of the migrants or London or anyone its just that London is positioned better to do business in the world. Tourism is one such example which is a lot greater than 10 or 20 years ago and most that tourism goes to London not to stoke-on-trent. However the taxes from that business do flow to stoke even if the actual business in in london

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

you seem to lament the lost of any job but maybe I misunderstand you and you really celebrate every bank closure as it makes us all richer.

I do think it is sad when anyone loses a job but these things happen in the real world. So what is your point?

Crashy_Time

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/lse-s-rolet-says-100-000-jobs-at-risk-if-clearing-leaves-london

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I do think it is sad when anyone loses a job but these things happen in the real world. So what is your point?

The point is you are either ignorant or a total hypocrite.

Your entire life, income, housing, job etc is predicated on other peoples job losses.
If argiculatural labourers hadn't lost their jobs, you would be a day labourer

the job losses you think are sad, pay for the NHS, for warm clothes for the people, for clean water , for gas and electricity, provide abundant foods and drink, flat screen TV, mobile phones, internet


Given the choice and the power : would you have prevented all job losses?

Money_saving_maniac

gfplux wrote: »

If you can point to any of my postings that suggest I am (remote) out of touch from what ordinary people feel and experience then do so.

I live in Luxembourg (just look to the left of this post) this gives me a unique perspective on Brexit.
You live where?

Your unique perspective being one of having not a clue about what it's like to live here, crammed in and pressed cheek by jowl in a country packed with migrants, then?
Or simply 'I'm alright, Jack'?
Or alternatively 'I'm a highly privileged individual, sucking on the teat of the EU gravy train'?

I think we should be told.

Money_saving_maniac

cells wrote: »

Well this is a place to talk it out.*

What do you think is wrong with the displacement idea.

If we import a million low skill workers what happens in the economy? They supply low value labour but they have higher value needs. If they are all for instance shelf stackers then who gets to become the 10,000 doctors that this groups demands call for?

Alternatively if we import a million very high skilled migrants who all get £80-100k pa jobs they have low skill and pay demands too. Who becomes the 10,000 shelf stackers that this groups demand calls for?

In both cases the answer is the locals. A million low skill low pay migrants push the local workforce up. A million high pay high skill migrants push the locals down.

In both instances the net contribution of each group will be very similar when you take into account the displaced taxes and people. Of course their pay slips will say a completely different number

I don't have enough skin left on my fingers to type a long enough post to rebut your nonsense, I'm afraid...maybe I'll feel strong enough tomorrow.

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

This board is overwhelmingly London-centric.

So yes, I'd say there are a number of views out of touch with ordinary people in the poorer parts of the country.

I travel quite a lot. It doesn't take much to see big differences between places around London and the Fylde coast or Scarborough.

If Europe is a financial benefit, it does not look like much of that benefit is flowing out to the regions.

Migrants know this. They flock overwhelmingly to places where they have a foothold or London/SE.

Hamish's view on people in poor parts of the UK is clear. He thinks they should move.

This particular debate and the position people take is very much influenced by where the poster lives. Not declaring where a poster lives undermines the opinion expressed.
I agree and have posted elsewhere that successive British Governments have not addressed issues that were important to people living outside the South East of England.

gfplux

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

Your unique perspective being one of having not a clue about what it's like to live here, crammed in and pressed cheek by jowl in a country packed with migrants, then?
Or simply 'I'm alright, Jack'?
Or alternatively 'I'm a highly privileged individual, sucking on the teat of the EU gravy train'?

I think we should be told.

You sound a nice person, why spoil that by posting the above. Don't be angry with me. Direct your anger at whatever has made you so bitter.
I don't know where you live so have no idea of the cause of your unhappiness.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Hamish's view on people in poor parts of the UK is clear. He thinks they should move.

I don't think all people in poorer parts of the UK should move.

I do however think there's something completely insane about society paying some people to stay indefinitely in areas they can't find work when there's plenty of work available in other areas.

That we have a system which enables people to choose not to work often for years on end, and even where there is plenty of work available just a couple of hours away in many of those cases, is frankly little short of barking mad.