Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

I simply do not believe there are the resources to sustain the mass migration we have been seeing.

Given ageing populations and the fact that migrants are net contributers I think the real question is are there the resources to reduce it.

I don't think high immigration is a good thing by the way, but I think drastic changes are required to our economy to cope with less immigration - and no one seems prepared to even discuss this.

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

I am sure lots of leavers would not mind staying in EU but without freedom of movement (my opinion so feel free to disagree). But no one is trying to get such deal. It is EU's all-or-nothing attitude which caused battle of egos on both sides.

Its not an “attitude” that is the fundamental way the single market works – and we were instrumental in setting it up so no one should be under any illusions that its somehow possible to opt out of bits of it. We could of course discourage immigration within FOM rules by adjusting our benefits system and the way business recruits people – as other EU countries do.

StevieJ

movilogo wrote: »

I am sure lots of leavers would not mind staying in EU but without freedom of movement (my opinion so feel free to disagree). But no one is trying to get such deal. It is EU's all-or-nothing attitude which caused battle of egos on both sides.

So you agree that immigration was the reason that we voted to leave the EU?

movilogo

Its not an “attitude” that is the fundamental way the single market works

But this is a man made rule. Why the Single Market includes 4 freedoms and not 3 or 5 freedoms? Why this can't be negotiated or why does EU not want to negotiate on this?

Is it because big businesses wants rely on cheap labour supply?

SouthLondonUser

movilogo wrote: »

Illegal = undocumented / unaccounted for = hence no formal stats. That's the main point here - did you not get it?

Thank you for reminding me the definition of 'illegal' - much obliged.

However, the point was slightly different: what proof is there of the extent of the phenomenon and of the related costs and problems? Yes, of course something illegal can never be measured with 100% accuracy, but do you have any reason, other than racism, ideology, etc., to quantify the phenomenon and be able to say it is really a huge issue? Otherwise how can you say that this is more serious than the millions of other illegal 'things' which cannot be measured precisely? How do you decide which illegal phenomenon must be prioritised if you cannot measure them?

movilogo wrote: »

Everyone has opinion for staying/leaving EU. Just because you find something illogical does not mean others will believe so.

There is a difference between opinions and facts.
Leaving because of the NHS bus thing, wrong.
Leaving because Turkey will join the EU - fake news.
Leaving because the EU is undemocratic as it doesn't let us choose EU Commissioners - wrong (we don't get to choose UK ministers, either, as I have explained at length).

You see, there may be scholars of comparative constitutional law who have their reservations about the functioning of the EU and voted to leave on that basis. However, the vast majority of Brexiters who voted 'because the eU is undemocratic' have a poor to non-existing understanding of how it actually works!

movilogo wrote: »

Human beings are emotional. It is neither good nor bad thing. It is just how it is.

It is bad if emotions cause a whole country to go down the drain. Latin America is full of examples of what happens when people vote only based on 'emotions'

movilogo wrote: »

People don't vote with logic - people vote with emotion and then use logic to justify that emotion.

Finally a Brexiter who admits it!

movilogo wrote: »

The reasons behind Brexit should be addressed and not ignored.

True. But Brexiters are too quick blaming the EU. Again, Cameron's austerity was not imposed by the EU. The fact that the UK is a country with huge inequality and a huge gap between low-productivity, low-income jobs on one side and high-productivity, high-income jobs on the other is not the EU's fault. Etc etc etc.

movilogo wrote: »

I am sure lots of leavers would not mind staying in EU but without freedom of movement (my opinion so feel free to disagree). But no one is trying to get such deal. It is EU's all-or-nothing attitude which caused battle of egos on both sides.

I don't know if to laugh or cry. The EU is a club with very clear rules. You can't pick and choose. You cannot get the benefits without paying for it! The fact that you even mention it shows the level of your delusion, how much you have totally failed to understand not only what the EU is, but what is realistically feasible.
OK, so let's say the EU has this all-or-nothing approach. Do you think it will be easier to get your way with the rest of the world in trade deals etc? Do you think the US and the rest of the world will be ready to give in to the UK's every wish and tantrum? Or are you getting ready for chlorinated chicken?

movilogo

StevieJ wrote: »

So you agree that immigration was the reason that we voted to leave the EU?

I would not say the reason but one of many reasons and surely a major reason.

SouthLondonUser

movilogo wrote: »

But this is a man made rule. Why the Single Market includes 4 freedoms and not 3 or 5 freedoms? Why this can't be negotiated or why does EU not want to negotiate on this?

Is it because big businesses wants rely on cheap labour supply?

Because 27 other member countries don't want to. I know it is shocking for most Brexiters, but the UK is not the centre of the universe. Its bargaining power is limited. Why should 27 other member countries give up one of the key principles of the Union? Just to please the UK?

movilogo

It is bad if emotions cause a whole country to go down the drain.

Whether an emotion is good or bad is subjective.

Some might consider house price going down a good thing.
Some others may consider going up is a good thing.

This line of argument falls in "I am right, you are wrong" approach so it won't solve anything.

Because 27 other member countries don't want to.

More like the question was not asked to citizens of members countries - in case outcome is not something EU wants

SouthLondonUser

movilogo wrote: »

I would not say the reason but one of many reasons and surely a major reason.

I ask again: can someone please, then, explain to me why London (large immigration) voted to remain while Cornwall (minimal immigration and lots of EU aid) voted to Leave?

Immigration alone doesn't explain it. Racism and fake news would, but, surely there are other reasons, right?
The last census showed something like 96% of the Cornish population was British white, and 95ish% born in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Cornwall

The data hasn't changed too much since the last census, since the ONS shows (for Cornwall 2017-2018:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/ukpopulationbycountryofbirthandnationality/july2017tojune2018

6% of non-UK born and 4% of non-British nationals

movilogo

can someone please, then, explain to me why London (large immigration) voted to remain while Cornwall (minimal immigration and lots of EU aid) voted to Leave?

I am guessing because of

1. a large % of London population are not native British i.e. immigrants themselves
2. London people are accoustommed with high level of immigration
3. Many London businesses rely heavily on continuous immigration
4. Even low immigration in Cornwall caused more psychological impact on native population there.

Don't forget only 60% of London voted to remain where as 40% voted to leave. There are many London boroughs where Leave won.