To avoid the economic ruin which would be brought by a no deal Brexit, and the pointlessness and loss of influence that would come with any of the other variations.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
To avoid the economic ruin which would be brought by a no deal Brexit, and the pointlessness and loss of influence that would come with any of the other variations.
Where is your historic data to prove this?
There have been a ton of studies done on the impact of Brexit and how it'll stifle the economy.
By stopping freedom of movement from EU countries to the UK
Re: non EU immigration, that obviously needs to be looked at and re evaluated.
I’d expect quotas to be flexible & change at frequent intervals to maintain a preferred approximate population level.
And all the remainers have been calling everyone else a racist for 3 years and wondering why the polls are barely flickering. Maybe Brwned was right in all his smugness
That doesn't explain anything. We are capable of stopping/reducing non-EU immigration already, but don't. We're capable of throttling EU immigration to some extent, but don't.
Why would having full control of EU immigration make the government suddenly choose to stop/reduce it? Every indication suggests they won't. So what will change?
Are you really, seriously, asking me that?
You're literally proving my point.
I'm not arguing against the fact that a lot of Remainers are condescending cnuts. But the fact is that Brexiteers now rarely ever, if at all, defend Brexit on the terms of what it'll actually involve.
Accusing other posters of being in a bubble, so entrenched that they aren't willing to see the merit to an arguement?
Not even entertaining the thought that the arguement might not be as compelling to people outside of your own bubble.
So much of it about right now....
Not even entertaining the thought that the arguement might not be as compelling to people outside of your own bubble.
So much of it about right now....
The sharp spike of non-EU migrants coming here since Brexit (due to the falling number of EU migrants) shows the government don't want to bring down the numbers at all, even if they're comfortable demonising and scapegoating migrants.
no I'm not sure who you're confusing me with but I was born in Belfast, have both a UK and Irish passport, and have lived in England for this whole decade.We don’t have full control of (EU) immigration because of freedom of movement. A caveat (of sorts) was pointed out earlier, but even that hasn’t been exercised, so I have no faith in the UK government suddenly changing policy if remaining.
Got to go now, sorry. Not bailing out of the debate, honest!
The reason that immigration hasn't been reduced isn't because we haven't used that caveat to control EU immigration. There have been more non-EU migrants than EU migrants in every quarter this decade. It wasn't the EU that forced us to let those non-EU folks in, it was the UK government.
More than that, the number of non-EU immigrants increased significantly and continuously in 2018, almost perfectly balancing out the drop in numbers of EU immigrants over the same time period.
That's what these folks mean when they say Brexit isn't a solution to that problem.
Last edited:
I have a certain amount of sympathy for those complaining about the smugness of remainers as there is certainly a large degree of that from many.
However, the problem for those making that complaint is that the remainers have thus far been largely proven correct in terms of the shitshow Brexit has become, while many of the Leave arguments have (as Remainers predicted) run afoul of reality.
It's a bit rich for one side to complain about the other being smug when they are largely unwilling to admit to their own mistaken assumptions and beliefs, even as those assumptions and beliefs have been laid bare across the Brexit process.
However, the problem for those making that complaint is that the remainers have thus far been largely proven correct in terms of the shitshow Brexit has become, while many of the Leave arguments have (as Remainers predicted) run afoul of reality.
It's a bit rich for one side to complain about the other being smug when they are largely unwilling to admit to their own mistaken assumptions and beliefs, even as those assumptions and beliefs have been laid bare across the Brexit process.
Because we would no longer be members of the EU.
If, after leaving, the Lab/Con sitting government don’t lower those levels tangibly as would reasonably be expected after leaving the EU, maybe the anti government/establishment protest vote would then increase, until somebody like Farage ends up as PM. Haha.
Then again, maybe not. We’re British. We put up with a lot before getting thoroughly p*ssed off enough about things to do something about them don’t we?
I'm not following your reasoning, sorry. If being out of the EU fixes it, then why has non-EU immigration been so high all these years?
Ive not claimed it totally fixes it.
Already said we need to look at levels of non-EU immigration too & re-evaluate that process?
So if immigration is your only point of contention, and you were hoping for government to try to solve it. Knowing that the EU were not stopping you/them, why vote to leave? Ignoring the potential upheaval....
I don't think it's that necessarily cheesy.
immigration is the easy answer to filling gaps in the labour force and solving the issue of generating more tax receipts, by way of income tax, to support the ageing population as they become a bigger drain on the public purse by living longer and having increased morbidity, which results in expensive medical care. I raised a point earlier in the thread that the only way to reduce the need for immigration would be too incentivise the indigenous population (include all permanent residents of all races and ethnicities in this) to have more children. A study issued by the NYT found that in America people are having less children for purely economic reasons.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html
I'm pretty certain that this phenomenon would be found in the UK too if it were investigated.
I estimate the way to incentivise people to more voluminous procreation would be to increase social security by way of free nursery places, better and more social housing and more tax breaks for parenting etc. A positive side effect of this would be a more happy population as a whole. If you look at the 'happiest' nations in such poll, mostly Nordic nations, they have very high levels of social security.
I'd also argue that high levels of immigration in a short space of time leads to fissures in the social fabric. This interpretation of the Brexit vote appears to confirm that.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/08/britains-immigration-paradox
Although, if you were intimating that the government were engaging in divide and conquer tactics then I would tend to agree.
Last edited:
So you voted for financial hardship to fix a problem that won't be fixed. Okay.
Okay yeah but you've said that's why you think we should leave, which suggests you think it'll at least reduce it to some degree.
I don't think it will reduce it in any meaningful way and the information @Brwned quoted backs that up. If you disagree I'm happy to listen to why you think so, but so far, you haven't given a reason at all.
Of course we'll have to look at non-EU immigration and "fix that" (if you assume that is something that needs fixing). All immigration will be non-EU if we leave.
Why won’t it be fixed? If we are dictating the rules of entry, then I don’t share that view.
Anyway, spent way too much time on this thread during the course of today, I’m off, so we’ll agree to disagree
I cannot believe some are suggesting euthanasia as a form of population control.
Why won’t it be fixed? If we are dictating the rules of entry, then I don’t share that view.
Anyway, spent way too much time on this thread during the course of today, I’m off, so we’ll agree to disagree
For the reasons detailed a few times which you keep ignoring.
And yup.
Wait till a load of OAP's who had moved to the EU mainland start drifting back to the UK.
The feck is everyone talking about? Europe's problem is not overpopulation - the EU's birth rate is 1.6. Replacement rate is 2.1.
An aging population putting increasing burden on social safety nets is the actual problem that Europe faces, not overpopulation.
Unless, of course, massive immigration waves happen to flood into Europe, exceeding the 2015 crisis by far. But that would not be an issue of population control.
Oh, and Walrus: being in favour of the death penalty is very much incompatible with the EU.
The overpopulation argument is widely misunderstood, often wilfully. On both a micro and macro level.
For one, England isn’t actually that over populated when compared to most other big or mainland European countries.
http://theconversation.com/think-yo...-about-population-density-across-europe-90345
Obviously it is in some places (ironically largely not those that voted Leave) but even in the most populous, one of the biggest actual reasons for tension isn't "the foreigners getting in!" as much as it's the raft of privately owned property left empty (80,000 in London alone, for example) or scandalously over priced, forcing the young, the poor and the otherwise restless to seek new, affordable housing - which then either ends up crowding the council system, or needing to be built anew - often on greenbelt land (or brownfield when available)...**
But then for a lot of the Brexit supporting uber landlords actually responsible for this, getting people to blame foreigners, rather than them, for the shortage of affordable living, whilst also demanding that new housing be built and invested in on previously off limits land (and guess who’d be doing that?) is pretty much precisely the point of the whole scam!
But of course, the World is getting more and more populated, right? So this hysteria is definitely based on something reasonable, right?....
Well... kinda?... But also...no.
**... and even then, we’re still a long, long way away from “paving the last bit of green in Albion” ....The urban sprawl has been constantly expanding for centuries, with equally constant opposition. To suddenly decide it’s reached its limit now, in your particular generational stage, seems a bit churlish tbh, no? A bit like every generation's Middle Aged insisting their youth is somehow uniquely awful, disrespectful or incapable...Wee could build a couple of whole new cities on England's green and pleasant lands right now, if we so wished... We did it with Milton Keynes? And that's gone largely quite well. Apart from the whole Wimbledon thing.
And in the end, if it comes down to “making sure we can provide a reasonable quality of life for everyone in a culturally rich modern society, by building on some Moors and shit” or “ensuring a higher quality for some, the bare minimum for others, and taking everyone back to 1972 in the process, by closing our borders and killing the elderly” Then, I dunno... I’d probs go for the former, tbh?
For one, England isn’t actually that over populated when compared to most other big or mainland European countries.
http://theconversation.com/think-yo...-about-population-density-across-europe-90345
Obviously it is in some places (ironically largely not those that voted Leave) but even in the most populous, one of the biggest actual reasons for tension isn't "the foreigners getting in!" as much as it's the raft of privately owned property left empty (80,000 in London alone, for example) or scandalously over priced, forcing the young, the poor and the otherwise restless to seek new, affordable housing - which then either ends up crowding the council system, or needing to be built anew - often on greenbelt land (or brownfield when available)...**
But then for a lot of the Brexit supporting uber landlords actually responsible for this, getting people to blame foreigners, rather than them, for the shortage of affordable living, whilst also demanding that new housing be built and invested in on previously off limits land (and guess who’d be doing that?) is pretty much precisely the point of the whole scam!
But of course, the World is getting more and more populated, right? So this hysteria is definitely based on something reasonable, right?....
Well... kinda?... But also...no.
**... and even then, we’re still a long, long way away from “paving the last bit of green in Albion” ....The urban sprawl has been constantly expanding for centuries, with equally constant opposition. To suddenly decide it’s reached its limit now, in your particular generational stage, seems a bit churlish tbh, no? A bit like every generation's Middle Aged insisting their youth is somehow uniquely awful, disrespectful or incapable...Wee could build a couple of whole new cities on England's green and pleasant lands right now, if we so wished... We did it with Milton Keynes? And that's gone largely quite well. Apart from the whole Wimbledon thing.
And in the end, if it comes down to “making sure we can provide a reasonable quality of life for everyone in a culturally rich modern society, by building on some Moors and shit” or “ensuring a higher quality for some, the bare minimum for others, and taking everyone back to 1972 in the process, by closing our borders and killing the elderly” Then, I dunno... I’d probs go for the former, tbh?
Last edited:
Ok forecasts, no historic data. Weather forecast for today was great. Turned oit cloudy and a bit chilly actually.
Yes, yes i am.
historic data shows that if you increase trade friction your economy will suffer
Nostalgia probably plays a major role in that. In contrast however, the result for pre-decimal currency is very low.
It's also worth remembering that the questionnaire may have been constructed to include those particular questions, since subtitle reads % of Leave voters who say the following "should be brought back", as opposed to the respondents themselves suggesting them.
I was just making a general point there.
Think we're all about to find out quite shortly.
You said you were planning to retire to the UK - warning - they may be waiting for you as you step off the plane.
OK. I do believe you are on a wind up, but I will answer, anyhow: I accept people do see things differently and opinions differ. This doesn't mean that I should consider all opinions equally valid. Some are less valid than others because, for example, they lack any logical or factual basis.
Apologies for any misunderstanding, that wasn't addressed to you specifically. Rather I was making a general point about how often said correlations have been remarked upon in the wake of Brexit and the inference that I'd say many people feel is contained within it.
As I said - I think the EU became a bit of a proxy in of all this. But in a country that has always had a strongly eurosceptic tradition it was a huge mistake for successive governments to allow certain conditions to fester and therefore particular feelings to manifest which would then prove decisive in such a referendum. In one sense then, the vote may not prove to be irrational at all, if it compels the political class to address these issues.
That may indeed be the case, but it simply doesn't matter at this point.
Exactly, and that's the cruel irony of the whole Brexit enterprise.
So in order for one to qualify as pro-EU, they must agree with every single concept, idea or preference of the EU?
Fairly sure that pretty much every remain voter (me included) doesn’t think the EU is perfect, and doesn’t agree with every single policy they offer.
I consider myself pro-EU because I am in favour of cooperation and integration with our neighbours, along with a plethora of other reasons. Doesn’t mean that every single belief that I hold needs to align with the EU. The recent net neutrality legislation is an absolute crock of shit, for example.
You want historical data for something that hasn’t been done yet?
Interesting line of questioning...
Also, quick note regarding overpopulation. I think ultimately it is a subjective term as everyone has their own idea of how many people is “enough”. My opinion is that the UK has too many people right now (and this is absolutely not a comment on immigration or ‘foreigners’ - if anything I find most immigrants more polite and hardworking etc than most brits).
Too many people have too many kids, and have them too young, and as mentioned before, the trend of people living longer and longer has caused an aging population. I would be interested to see the stats of the proportion of the total population in full time employment compared with previous years/decades. I think the “aging population” issue goes very much hand in hand with overpopulation. When I have been abroad to countries like Spain or the US, it has always struck me simply how much open land there is compared with the UK. Even from a brief look on google maps, it is easy to see the level of industrialisation and urbanisation here compared with other countries. Personally I generally prefer cities to the countryside anyway, but to me it is an issue when we are irreversibly getting rid of our green spaces.
Thing is, none of this is particularly to do with the EU or Brexit.
Too many people have too many kids, and have them too young, and as mentioned before, the trend of people living longer and longer has caused an aging population. I would be interested to see the stats of the proportion of the total population in full time employment compared with previous years/decades. I think the “aging population” issue goes very much hand in hand with overpopulation. When I have been abroad to countries like Spain or the US, it has always struck me simply how much open land there is compared with the UK. Even from a brief look on google maps, it is easy to see the level of industrialisation and urbanisation here compared with other countries. Personally I generally prefer cities to the countryside anyway, but to me it is an issue when we are irreversibly getting rid of our green spaces.
Thing is, none of this is particularly to do with the EU or Brexit.
Indeed you did. Too many people my arse...
the rate of childbirth is lower than ever and age at which people have kids is higher than ever
Yeah but he saw a few teenage mums so your stats don't mean anything
Which is a sign of decline, anthropologically speaking.