The Trade Implications of Brexit....

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

My interactions with them have been alright, but I'm in a more socialst part of the union to you. They can definitely be improved but the problem lays with the government (who waste money) and not foreigners (who generate money).

you live in a part of the union that is more heacvily funded than England (paid for my the English)
obviously the tories are evil and useless

No, I pointed out that large population doesn't mean inferior infrastructure. I was showing you that good planning and investment results in good infrastructure.

You then tried to cite Japan as an example of why reducing immigration was good, when in reality Japans lack of migrants is slowly killing it, just like will happen to us as our population ages and we don't have anyone to pay for it.

no, you quoted a country with zero immigration as an example of one that did well.

when and if we need immigrants then we can review the situation when it arises in a sensible non dogmatic pragmatic way

yessuz

CLAPTON wrote: »

you live in a part of the union that is more heacvily funded than England (paid for my the English)
obviously the tories are evil and useless



no, you quoted a country with zero immigration as an example of one that did well.

when and if we need immigrants then we can review the situation when it arises in a sensible non dogmatic pragmatic way

so you think Japan do not need immigrants?! well well..

CLAPTON

yessuz wrote: »

so you think Japan do not need immigrants?! well well..

herzlos praised Japan: speak to him directly and not through me

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

that would be illogically

people coming to this country have to live somewhere
what they do in practice is to rent;
depending upon the level of the rent they may live in a 10 bed apartment in mayfair
or they may share a tatty room in bermonsey;

either way, the demand for property rises and with it the price
more rents means landlord will pay more fro property

the net result is that property prices rise, space available for each person decreases

but most the regions of the uk are priced about where they were 10 years ago so instead of the migrants pushing prices up at best you can argue that they saved some towns from becoming like stoke-on-trent.

yessuz

CLAPTON wrote: »

herzlos praised Japan: speak to him directly and not through me

that's not exactly his words

yessuz

cells wrote: »

but most the regions of the uk are priced about where they were 10 years ago so instead of the migrants pushing prices up at best you can argue that they saved some towns from becoming like stoke-on-trent.

precisely.
I see lots of places where house prices are more or less same as in 2006

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

when and if we need immigrants then we can review the situation when it arises in a sensible non dogmatic pragmatic way

we need migration now, the natives are probably already at the Japanese type levels of 1.4 children per women and anecdotally to me from the people I know it looks like its going to get worse

We know that the EU migrants are net contributors if for no other reason than their profile is more young and less old and the old are the heavy tax requiring block. When you take into account that they push up locals on the skills/pay scale its probably a very big net contrition so taxes are lower and public services better thanks to the EU migrants

Your arguments of infrastructure all fail apart from maybe housing in London but that is only one thing in only 15% of the country. It is also not universally a negative as without the high prices do you think London would be building as much additional homes, do you think we would have as much good regeneration where old crap stock is knocked down and replaced with better built homes. London is in almost every way a better city than it was 20 years ago

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

you live in a part of the union that is more heacvily funded than England (paid for my the English)
obviously the tories are evil and useless

No. I live in a part of the country with devolved decision making over the NHS, that pays it's fair share.

no, you quoted a country with zero immigration as an example of one that did well.

I didn't mention immigration in the context of Japan. I was correcting your idea that increased population means poorer infrastructure.

when and if we need immigrants then we can review the situation when it arises in a sensible non dogmatic pragmatic way

It's not up for debate that we need immigration; our economy is in the crapper and they prop it up.

CLAPTON wrote: »

herzlos praised Japan: speak to him directly and not through me

No I didn't. I praised their public transport. I said nothing about their economy or migration status. You took what I said to try and justify why zero immigration was good, and got shot down by the facts, again.

cells

yessuz wrote: »

precisely.
I see lots of places where house prices are more or less same as in 2006

there is no doubt that migrants push house prices up but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In much of England where housing is very affordable and cheap one could argue instead of causing prices to balloon out of control the migrants stopped a crash in prices to undesirable lows. Birmingham, Englands second biggest city is cheap. Without the migrants if prices were say 1/3rd lower would that necessarily be a good thing in a part of the country were prices are already cheap? What would new build rates and the jobs and economic activity and taxes from tha be like if Birmingham prices were 30-40% lower?


Clapton can take a look at middlesborough as an example of a population declining town to have an idea of what cheap homes and declining populations looks like

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Without membership of the Single Market the UK automotive industry will be run down over time until virtually all car manufacture in the UK ceases.

Last year we produced 1,6000,000 cars, which everyone heralds as a fantastic achievement. Of course our record year for car production was 1972 when we produced almost 2,000,000.

Then in 1973 we joined the EEC (forerunner of the EU). 43 years on and we're still a few hundred thousand below our pre - EU days.

Isn't the single market wonderful.