Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

There isn't much migration in my village, if any.

However, when I visit an old Uni friend over near Boston, it's difficult not to notice the change.

It's not for me to deny the grievances of people I know who have more direct experience, is it?

The people with most experience of immigration are probably Londoners, and we weren't exactly baying to leave the EU

Filo25

Thrugelmir wrote: »

FoM results in little control. Whether people are self supporting or not makes no difference. There's an underworld to the UK. A black economy. People trafficking, drugs, prostitution, building labourers, restaurant staff. We recently had a case here where 3 families, 23 people were sharing a three bed semi. People adapt. If it's a better life from where they came why wouldn't they. Most likely with the aim of saving money and one day returning home.

There's high demand for skills in many sectors. UK based companies haven't invested. As there's been no need to over the past decade. Now we are seeing the long term effects of such policies. Our local college stopped offering apprenticeship training 3 years ago. As local companies reduced their take up. It's the kids that require vocational rather academic work that require assistance.

Well I wouldn't think that the current uncertain economic outlook will exactly be motivating significant investment either.

Difficult for most companies to justify increasing investment levels when there is so much uncertainty about what the UK economy will look like in a few short years time, even ignoring the difficulties of negotiating with the EU, the current government still seems a long way away from forming a coherent position to start negotiations from.

I wouldn't even say Brtiish companies tendency to underinvest is a new issue in response to high levels of migration, it was viewed as a major issue back when I was doing my Economics degree back in the early 90's

kabayiri

Filo25 wrote: »

The people with most experience of immigration are probably Londoners, and we weren't exactly baying to leave the EU

I think we have touched on before, that London has such high infrastructure spend, that it is able to cope with changes much more easily than some of our provincial towns.

If that is true, then doesn't it support the argument for planned migration?

It would make sense to bolster things like GP surgeries and schools "before" the arrival of large numbers of newcomers, not panic afterwards.

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

I think we have touched on before, that London has such high infrastructure spend, that it is able to cope with changes much more easily than some of our provincial towns.

If that is true, then doesn't it support the argument for planned migration?

It would make sense to bolster things like GP surgeries and schools "before" the arrival of large numbers of newcomers, not panic afterwards.

I totally agree on the need for investment, but we have been caught in the austerity trap since the GFC, and while studies show EU immigrants contribute more than the they take out (not too surprising as they skew towards younger age groups), that money generally hasn't been reinvested, its just helped to slightly hold down the deficit from higher levels than it otherwise would be at.

We underinvest in infrastructure generally in the UK, even London needs more spend given the growth it has experienced.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Filo25 wrote: »

The people with most experience of immigration are probably Londoners, and we weren't exactly baying to leave the EU

London has however been exposed to migration for centuries, with what we might now call mass migration certainly as far back as the 16th Century and the formation of the Empire.
Rural Lincolnshire (together with many other places) methinks has not.

Is it not then only natural that somewhere like London with a long history of diverse nationalities and cultures would be more accepting of further immigration than parts of the country that had previously had little (or even no) experience of such a sudden influx?

https://www.kgs-tornesch.de/dokumente/upload/London%20Texte%20Un/12C/Migration%20-%2012C.pdf

Thrugelmir

Filo25 wrote: »

We underinvest in infrastructure generally in the UK, even London needs more spend given the growth it has experienced.

Even the mighty Germany has under spent too. It has the lowest infrastructure investment rate of any large rich economy. Will be a major issue in next months elections at a regional level. Same old chestnut. No wants to pay for the full cost of public provided services and infrastructure.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

Agreed. But back in the 60s when first McMillan and then Heath tried to drag us in, the public were told that the Common Market was exactly that. Heath went out of his way to tell the electorate that we were joining a free trade area and there was no threat to our sovereignty.

There was no internet at the time and actually getting information about the CM, other than the line fed by politicians, was far from easy.
Heath was either lying about the nature of the project or he had been misinformed about the Treaty of Rome.

Many people at the time, myself included (I was already eurosceptic at the age of 18) had doubts about the whole thing and these were cemented when the Common Market rushed through the Common Fisheries Policy just before we joined. Heath was so besotted with the idea of the Common Market that he completely ignored this obligation to hand over our fishing grounds and ploughed on regardless.

Of course, unlike a few other countries, notably Norway, the UK electorate were never given the opportunity to consent to joining. If we had, I have no doubt that we would have voted against and we would not be where we are now.

It's marvellous that in 2016 you were finally given the opportunity to air your views... from 1960.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Oh dear, the pro-remain pro-EU contingent in this forum are in an ever-decreasing minority from the looks of this:
"Most Remain voters now back taking control of borders, leaving ECJ and paying no Brexit divorce bill"

A major survey of more than 20,000 people revealed that an overwhelming majority of voters now prefer a so-called “hard Brexit” to a soft one.
Almost 70 per cent of people said they preferred a deal with the European Union which ended membership of the single market, ongoing payments and continued freedom of movement.
A similar percentage of people said they would prefer “no deal” to a “soft Brexit”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/11/remain-voters-now-back-taking-control-borders-leaving-ecj-paying/


It looks as if the attempts at propaganda and continuation of "Project Fear" are having the opposite effect to that which is intended, as is so often the case when such tactics are used.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

gfplux wrote: »

I thought that was the rule.

Brexiters quote Britains successes and EU problems since the referendum.

Remainers quote Britains growing problems since the referendum.

You as a Brexiter play by those rules and I as a remainer do the same.

How then do you feel about the post above and the majority that actually want what some call a "hard Brexit"?
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/11/remain-voters-now-back-taking-control-borders-leaving-ecj-paying/ )
Why then also is your distress not directed towards EU bureaucrats who - as you must realise - are the ones in charge of Brexit negotiations?
(Read earlier posts as well as Article 50 etc. for the "rules of engagement" as it were.)

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)You're not a "remainer" either are you?

Private_Church

Filo25 wrote: »

The people with most experience of immigration are probably Londoners, and we weren't exactly baying to leave the EU

These are the same Londoners who haven't built the houses to accomodate the thousands of extra migrants per year who move to the Capital and see London as the promised land. These are the same Londoners who failed to build any Social Housing and ship thousands of poor people out of the city to the home counties, buying up ex army bases to house the very people Londoners either don't give a damn about and in turn puts pressure on the housing in the Home Counties.

Many of the affluent middle class Londoners are leaving London and its no wonder why, if its such a great place to live why do so many leave?.

I think it sums up London quite nicely with it being full of shallow people who live in a bubble and totally fail to build infrastructure it needs to support the very people it encourages to move there.