Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

System

Conrad wrote: »

Are you saying the EU and it's members will merrily place tariffs on the UK and we wont reply in kind?

Where did you get that from?

You said Ireland won't allow the EU to agree a poor deal and posted a nice story about horses to make your point. It's irrelevant - the UK will be deciding what the import duty is on a gelding and what horses will be allowed in.

British horses are lobbying hard for restrictions to be imposed anyway. Bloody foreign horses coming here and stealing jobs from native born horses.

setmefree2

I came across this.

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ilovehouses wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

You said Ireland won't allow the EU to agree a poor deal and posted a nice story about horses to make your point. It's irrelevant - the UK will be deciding what the import duty is on a gelding and what horses will be allowed in.

British horses are lobbying hard for restrictions to be imposed anyway. Bloody foreign horses coming here and stealing jobs from native born horses.

Strange how you think the needs of the Irish are all of a sudden irrelevant to the EU now.
:whistle:

setmefree2

Labour have always a party of mass migration. They still are a party of mass migration.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Apart from the first paragraph which TBH is no more than unnecessary waffle (there was no mention in my post re: sovereignty which you repeatedly refer to), you yet again display remarkably poor understanding.
The UK could not in fact simply decide that EU law does not apply.
Maybe you need to read more upon supremacy of EU law in the UK (and indeed other EU member countries) - in fact this time I will help you.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/
Unlike your suggestion, mine actually contains useful information which it looks like you missed or simply ignored.
Hence the repeal bill.

You don't know what sovereignty means.

Nothing is imposed by the EU on parliament - they choose to enact EU law domestically. They could, in fact, on any day of the last 40 odd years voted to repeal the EU Communities Act - they didn't need a referendum and they certainly don't need permission from the EU.

Your 'telling' quote is correct. This would be incompatible with continued EU membership (no seem about it). Hence why we're leaving and hence the repeal bill.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Strange how you think the needs of the Irish are all of a sudden irrelevant to the EU now.
:whistle:

I don't think that. Stop building silly straw men.

It's perfectly clear that Irish horse merchants, Spanish tomato growers and Dutch flower sellers can lobby the EU all they like but the EU won't be deciding what the UK's tariff code will be post brexit.

Not that you'll be able to slip a cigarette paper between the UK and EU's codes post brexit. The brexit department are probably working on an innovative name to make it sound different.

NineDeuce

The people who blame immigration for everything and then lie about it, like the person suggesting we need 3 cities the size of Newcastle every year, quickly change from "look at all the problems now" to "we wont be able to cope in the future" once the immigration myths are dispelled.

Where are the new cities the size of Newcastle every year then? Or are there just an addition of 1 million per year to the homeless list?

"How can we cope on this small island?" I hear them cry, before you tell them that only 5% of this land is built on, and that more space here is dedicated to golf courses than housing.

This is just nonsense perpetuated by career seeking politicians and people who want to make themselves feel better by blaming others for their own downfall. If there are already so many problems, then why has nobody said that we need a reduction in the population, not just a reduction in net migration. If there were already problems, then they will still remain, but they dont.

When you get past the scare stories, facts and figures actually show immigration under a positive light, but the joker turkeys will continue voting for Christmas...

kabayiri

setmefree2 wrote: »

Labour have always a party of mass migration. They still are a party of mass migration.

The Tories have been slated for missing migration targets they themselves put in their manifesto since 2010.

But where were the equivalent New Labour targets in their manifesto?

Maybe they were aiming for a million a year, and were incompetent in only achieving 250K !

andrewf75

PaulW1965 wrote: »

To all those who want a second referendum so we can Remain in the UK - answer one question for me.

With immigration at a million people plus every year where is everyone going to live?

That is three cities the size of Newcastle. How on earth do you find that acceptable? Don't you care that your kids won't be able to buy a house ever? Don't you care that we will living three generstions to a house like people in their 1930s? Are you nuts?

That is really quite a ridiculous line of thinking assuming that all remain voters actively want high immigration.
I don't think Brexit will make much difference to immigration levels at all - unless the absolute worst case scenarios happen in terms of economic decline
When it comes to caring about my kids future many many other factors caused me to side with remain. I find it pretty offensive to suggest that anyone voted for something they didn't think was in the interests of their kids (or countries) future. I certainly wouldn't accuse a leave voter of doing so.

gfplux

Sapphire wrote: »

'Although I seem to recall that Frau Merkel was one of those who stated that 'Britain must be punished', which wouldn't bode well for negotiating with her. And isn't she the one who has been issuing political dictats to continental European nations all along?'



No – I do not. It is quite clear, and on record, that she did both things, and her compatriot, Schultz, certainly also did use such rhetoric. It's two of the things that have antagonised so many in this country (and I would imagine in continental European countries as well). Don't try to change facts to suit your own reality and aims.

You say it's on record, please post the link.