Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[baldgye]

We can bandy about what a politician should be until the cows come home, but what something should be is rarely what it is. If the political system supporting your country relies on people acting as they should, that's a problem.

As far as good politicians being in short supply, we're in a thread talking about the UK leaving the EU. If they weren't in short supply, we wouldn't be here.

I think you know this, that's why part of your solution is a major changing of the political guard. If you thought that the majority of politicians were on the up and up and were working for the good of the country, then you wouldn't suggest that. Don't just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing, please.

Not all politicians voted for Brexit (including our PM) or think/thought it was a good idea to begin with. While not all those against it are therefore good to go great guys and gals, it's an example that they aren't all there to **** us.

Brexit can be a catalyst for change as it's exposing real problems with the system, but it was not the catalyst for the political breakdown which is what you were saying before. That was already in place, it just didn't have anything to stress it far enough.

I'm saying that the stress of Brexit on the political class was the catalyst. Yeah it built up and up over the years but it still needed a spark to set the house ablaze.

The Leave campaign ran and succeeded on the back of popular opinion. They didn't brainwash half the country.

Again, kinda yes and no?
The media have, for the last 15-20 years or so been building up hate and resentment towards the EU. Using them as a scapegoat for everything. Politicians would use it to rally the right wing (Boris and his bananas being a good example), xenophobia is easy to rally up in poorly educated islanders, after all.
So while Leave didn't brainwash anyone, the daily papers and press already had. Leave/BNP/UKIP just prayed on those fears.

I like to be a little optimistic in that thinking the vast majority are not xenophobic pieces of ****, but that could just be a failing in me.

That said, it's hard to know why people voted to leave other than in the most broad sense (we'd be better off), due to how monumentally large and all encompassing leaving the EU is and how much it would affect. Hell I've had discussions with people on here about why they chose to leave and even they couldn't pin down an actual reason, other than we'd be better off.

And, to sorta wrap it round back to where we started, its this reason alone that I think another vote should take place and that the people should get to decide (or give another advisement) on the type of deal we get or if we take a no-deal. And if that vote impacts the lower house, but saves the country from ruin then that is what has to happen.

 

[Imari]

I like to be a little optimistic in that thinking the vast majority are not xenophobic pieces of ****, but that could just be a failing in me.

You know that evolutionarily, xenophobia is a survival trait, right? People and things outside your own community are likely to be dangerous. We're social animals that have developed to like and protect those around us. When those around us are visually distinct, that just makes it easier.

For most of human history, fearing the other was a good heuristic. Communities that followed it would be generally more successful than those that didn't. Chances were pretty good that an outsider was looking to bash you on the head with a pointy rock and take your stuff. It's only in the modern age where war and violence are really not that common and we have societal structures that greatly benefit from breadth of experience that this has become less true.

I don't think we should belittle people too much for being humans. Sure, some people take racism and xenophobia to extremes that even a caveman would find silly, but there's a rational basis for some amount of xenophobia. I mean, who do you want to see succeed more, your family and friends or wee Willy Poopsinpond from Namibia? It's natural for people (and indeed, all living things) to prefer their "own kind", however that be defined. In order to propagate your genes you kind of by definition have to deep down believe that they're better/more important than anyone else's.

And, to sorta wrap it round back to where we started, its this reason alone that I think another vote should take place and that the people should get to decide (or give another advisement) on the type of deal we get or if we take a no-deal. And if that vote impacts the lower house, but saves the country from ruin then that is what has to happen.

But that's the original point. Even if you have that vote, even if it comes out 100% in favour of Remain, the ball is not entirely in the UK's court. The EU has to balance the benefit of having the UK in the EU versus making an example of them. Which means that even in the best case, the UK probably faces either financial penalties or loss of preferential status in order to get back in. The EU is highly unlikely to just let the UK drop this with no repercussions after two years of screwing around. Why would they? To be nice? This isn't kindergarten, international politicians are expected to be wearing their big boy pants and own the consequences of their decisions.

So whether you Remain or Leave there are likely to be economic consequences. And probably political ones too, whether there's a deal or not half the country is going to be up in arms. There is no "good" option. Although I think the idea that the country will be ruined if it leaves the EU seems a bit overdramatic. It's not going to do you any favours, but I don't think that the UK turns into a third world country. I don't think the UK even gets to the levels of, say, Greece.

And then there's your idea that you can get a whole country to come to some sort of meaningful consensus on what type of deal or no-deal is accepted. Try this thought experiment: you go ask a hundred people what they'd like to have for dinner. They all have to have exactly the same thing. If it's a hundred adults, you might actually get an answer after a few hours or days. If it's a hundred children you will never get an answer. Now multiply that by the size of an entire country, on an issue that actually has some relevance to their future.

What you propose is impossible. You cannot make international economic policy by referendum. At best you can get answers on broad, simple strategic questions (like Leave or Remain), and then leave the details up to a small group of professionals to manage as best they can within the given guidelines.

This is the problem. You're well past the point of no return here. It's basically all done bar the screaming. I'd honestly be looking at what can be done to support an independent UK at this point, because a clean exit without too much political shenanigans is probably the best hope for stability. I'd look at the dissolution of the USSR as an example of a number of states exiting a much larger political alliance and how they fared. The UK still has strong ties to the US and the Commonwealth states, maybe look to make the most of those.

 

[baldgye]

You know that evolutionarily, xenophobia is a survival trait, right? People and things outside your own community are likely to be dangerous.

By that logic is being racist also 'ok' ?

The EU has to balance the benefit of having the UK in the EU versus making an example of them. Which means that even in the best case, the UK probably faces either financial penalties or loss of preferential status in order to get back in. The EU is highly unlikely to just let the UK drop this with no repercussions after two years of screwing around. Why would they? To be nice? This isn't kindergarten, international politicians are expected to be wearing their big boy pants and own the consequences of their decisions.

Agreed.

There is no "good" option.

Agreed.

Although I think the idea that the country will be ruined if it leaves the EU seems a bit overdramatic.

A No-Deal leave. The government is literally stock-piling food and medicines.

And then there's your idea that you can get a whole country to come to some sort of meaningful consensus on what type of deal or no-deal is accepted.

The idea (and it isn't mine), is that the government has it's proposal for what leaving the EU should be, and then we get a final say on the matter. Yes this deal is acceptable, or no it isn't.

You cannot make international economic policy by referendum.

We already have.

You're well past the point of no return here. It's basically all done bar the screaming. I'd honestly be looking at what can be done to support an independent UK at this point, because a clean exit without too much political shenanigans is probably the best hope for stability. I'd look at the dissolution of the USSR as an example of a number of states exiting a much larger political alliance and how they fared. The UK still has strong ties to the US and the Commonwealth states, maybe look to make the most of those.

It's late in the day but it isn't a done deal. Very little can be done to support an independent UK because while we are a member of the EU we cannot negotiate trade deals. It's why the PM literally danced about getting an agreement to a trade deal in Africa, from a single nation. Two years and we have a single agreement of trade, from a single country... how long will it take to get the 700 we already have back? And while we wait, we (the UK) gets weaker and weaker, so our hand at the negotiating table gets worse and worse...
We already trade with the commonwealth and the US is currently run by a person who's openly and willingly engaging in trade warfare.

 

[Imari]

By that logic is being racist also 'ok' ?

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say racism was OK. I said that some level of xenophobia is understandable from an evolutionary perspective. That is all.

Even if you substitute "racism" for "xenophobia", and I'd suggest that there's some distinction there, I'm not saying that the behaviour is desirable in a modern world. But one can dislike how certain people behave while still understanding the basis for why they do it.

Perhaps I'm being a little too open minded. Or perhaps you're just looking to get in cheap shots.

 

[baldgye]

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say racism was OK. I said that some level of xenophobia is understandable from an evolutionary perspective. That is all.

Sorry, I had to ask.

 

[baldgye]

https://news.sky.com/story/pound-ju...brexit-deal-possible-before-november-11494677

This news story has me intrigued, maybe @Touring Mars can help me out, but if this 'deal' was the Chequers deal, wouldn't the Reese Mobb () use this to try and collapse the government?

 

[Touring Mars]

And how was the case diffrent woth people who voted to leave? They didn't know what tge result was going to be yet that didn't stop anyone from claiming the referendup to be legit?

I do want to say I agree with most of you analasys, this claim just struck me as strange so I'm wondering what I'm missing that maies the diffrence between those 2 referenda.

Good question... but it does also illustrate what I’m getting at too.

One reason why Brexit is such a shambles is precisely because of the lack of clarity over what a ‘Leave’ vote actually meant. My point regarding a possible second vote to reverse that decision would suffer from the same lack of clarity, with the difference being that this time it is the EU/ECJ that will decide what ‘Remain’ means.

https://news.sky.com/story/pound-ju...brexit-deal-possible-before-november-11494677

This news story has me intrigued, maybe @Touring Mars can help me out, but if this 'deal' was the Chequers deal, wouldn't the Reese Mobb () use this to try and collapse the government?

Pretty much, yes. But, ironically, May might still win because she will be able to muster enough support from Labour to push ‘soft’ Brexit over the line, at the expense of a mass exodus from her own party and probably triggering a General Election.

It is still very possible, however, that Theresa May will not succeed in convincing Parliament to accept her final deal, even if Barnier is going to accept it. And then we are in trouble.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My point regarding a possible second vote to reverse that decision would suffer from the same lack of clarity,

I think a vote should be held but that it would only be right (or possible) if a deal (or whatever passes for one) is clearly explained for the public to decide upon.

 

[Touring Mars]

The problem with that is what happens if the Brexit deal is voted down?

In the first referendum, the question was essentially do we leave the EU, but the 'negative' result would have meant nothing happens, just as was the case in the Scottish indyref - a 'no' vote simply entailed a return to business as usual the next day, literally as if the vote had not occurred at all.

But this is not the case any more. A 'yes' vote (which is, IMO, very unlikely) will see Brexit proceed, albeit leaving most people unhappy - but the key point is that a 'no' vote doesn't just return the nation to its pre-referendum state - in fact, a 'no' vote will probably entail a far more significant change from a 'yes' vote, because it will almost certainly result in a constitutional crisis that will paralyse the UK to the point where we will not be able to avoid crashing out of the EU without any type of deal whatsoever. And even there is not a significant constitutional crisis in the UK, the chances of a no-deal scenario playing out are still much higher because of the fact that there is no process in place within the EU to avoid it either. The process of reversing Brexit could, in theory, be swift - but it could just as easily turn out to be as complex and divisive among EU member states (if not even more so) than Brexit has been in the UK. Assuming that the reversal process will be straightforward and completed in time before the UK leaves the EU by default is, IMO, quite foolhardy.

As such, putting it to a public vote is, IMO, by far the riskiest option as it makes the risk of an 'accidental' Brexit far higher.

 

[baldgye]

As such, putting it to a public vote is, IMO, by far the riskiest option as it makes the risk of an 'accidental' Brexit far higher.

A vote seems to be the only chance we have to avoid causing an accidental Brexit or indeed any kind of Brexit.

 

[Touring Mars]

A vote seems to be the only chance we have to avoid causing an accidental Brexit or indeed any kind of Brexit.

I think the idea that Brexit can be 'avoided' is wishful thinking - the best we can hope for now is that a deal is struck between the UK and the EU that avoids a no deal Brexit.

By definition, an 'accidental Brexit' can only happen if the UK decided to stay in (i.e. after a second vote) but ends up leaving anyway because the process cannot, for whatever reason, be stopped. That is completely different to exiting without a deal on purpose. My argument is that a second vote makes leaving without a deal accidentally far more likely - and it is something that people who are pushing for a second vote (in the possibly misguided belief that it will result in an abandonment of Brexit) ought to bear in mind.

Until the process by which Article 50 can be rescinded can be clearly explained and implemented, then a 'People's Vote' will always carry with it a substantial risk of having the opposite effect than was intended.

 

[Kano Manel]

Oh dear, even in GT Planet forum the ****ing brexit.... I can't believe it....

Can I share my 2 pennies?

I’m a foreigner and a former Brexit supporter. I was very excited with the idea at the beginning, but since I joined the University of Essex and started to research for a Business Management degree I’ve been changing my mind. I don’t like the idea that much anymore.

Now, if you wonder Why would a bloody foreigner be a Brexit supporter? think twice.

The economic bubble that European institutions encouraged in underdeveloped countries like Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain triggered the biggest migration wave since WW2.

I personally lost everything. I came to this country with £300 and I had to sleep in someone’s kitchen the first night (obviously on the floor, and yet I was better off than the guy who had to sleep in the bathroom).

However, my first job was at Buckingham Palace, because I have an impressive CV in security. Since then, I have worked in the Olympics, I have escorted the flame, I have met a Prime Minister and a Queen, and everything I tried I have achieved it. I have never been discriminated in any way for being a foreigner, neither my wife. I can’t say that I feel at home, but I can indeed say that I love this country.

That is way the idea of Brexit sounded exciting to me, but I’m biased. I am a victim of the European institutions and economic policies. But you aren’t, Britain is one of the biggest economic beneficiary of the current situation (before the referendum, of course).

The key issue here is immigration, it is simply too much. I found just this small graphic which already places UK as the biggest receiver of migration after Germany (but German numbers are inflated because the refugees they accepted, if you don’t count the refugees and pay attention to normal migration movements, UK is the biggest receptor in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 etc, etc, etc, etc… you get the idea). This data is from EuroStat, by the way.

So, population in UK have been growing around 0.5% for several years. That rate is insane. There is no country in Europe growing like this. Just only that justifies to close the border immediately as a security measure.

The thing is that UK has no real tools to control immigration within the EU, Theresa May did nothing for years to control this when she was Home Secretary, and is going to do even less now as Prime Minister.

In Spain if you don’t have a job you don’t receive health care. In Germany if you don’t learn the language and don’t get a job you are out in 6 months, out! There are rules that can be applied, there are controls that can be implemented. Neither Cameron, nor the previous PM have done anything to address the migration waves.

And this I can’t understand. How is possible that a retarded corrupt Spanish politician has the brain to come out with migration control policies compatible with the EU membership and UK politicians don’t?

So, at the end looks like immigrants are evil beings that want to overpopulate nations, when in reality migration is a natural flow that tends to derivate more towards richer countries, and is the responsibility of the governments to control this.

UK has not controlled anything in almost a generation. The migration policies are old, outdated and sometimes contradictory.

Yes, they contradict each other:

To integrate you have to study the language, to join english courses you have to be in benefits, hence to study the language and integrate you can’t work. But the government of Cameron wanted to cut the number of people in benefits… you need benefits to study English here!! This might be a form of practical joke.
And how can you integrate in a country if the migration policies are forcing you to stay in benefits?


Anyways, I conclude (if you had read the whole thing, kudos mate, and thank you).

I’ve been researching for my degree in the Uni and the numbers are very preoccupant. I don’t believe in project fear, so don’t sign me up for that coach or that train. What I’m worried about is the productivity puzzle, and if you don’t know what it is simply google UK Productivity Puzzle and research a bit (this post is too long already).

If the productivity in UK has been frozen for nearly 10 years inside the EU… what is going to happen when we get out.

I don’t believe this is going to be a catastrophe, British economy is sustained by 5.7 million small businesses all over Britain, more than Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and France together.

What I’m really afraid of is the absolute lack of leadership, direction or guts in the political class in this nation, which do not have a clue of what they are doing. And that is, make no mistake, the real danger in this situation. UK is fitted with all what is needed to get out of the EU without much trouble, what Britain lacks is leaders that know how to do it. That is the real danger.

Those are my 2 pennies (not exactly 2, more like 900 words, oh dear… sorry about that)

 

[UKMikey]

I'd love to surf the net at work researching the UK productivity puzzle but I'm worried that it'll affect my work output.

If the case for Brexit were made in the manner of @Kano Manel above perhaps the referendum might not have been so divisive.

 

[baldgye]

I think the idea that Brexit can be 'avoided' is wishful thinking - the best we can hope for now is that a deal is struck between the UK and the EU that avoids a no deal Brexit.

By definition, an 'accidental Brexit' can only happen if the UK decided to stay in (i.e. after a second vote) but ends up leaving anyway because the process cannot, for whatever reason, be stopped. That is completely different to exiting without a deal on purpose. My argument is that a second vote makes leaving without a deal accidentally far more likely - and it is something that people who are pushing for a second vote (in the possibly misguided belief that it will result in an abandonment of Brexit) ought to bear in mind.

Until the process by which Article 50 can be rescinded can be clearly explained and implemented, then a 'People's Vote' will always carry with it a substantial risk of having the opposite effect than was intended.

I was conflating accidental brexit with us voting not to do it and it happening, and the plan of May's not being accepted by the EU or the lower house and us leaving without a plan. I guess that's my fault for not being clear. But far as I can see, best solution is to staying in the EU is another vote. All major party leaders have made it clear they don't care or don't want to fight the government.

The thing is that UK has no real tools to control immigration within the EU, Theresa May did nothing for years to control this when she was Home Secretary, and is going to do even less now as Prime Minister.

In Spain if you don’t have a job you don’t receive health care. In Germany if you don’t learn the language and don’t get a job you are out in 6 months, out! There are rules that can be applied, there are controls that can be implemented. Neither Cameron, nor the previous PM have done anything to address the migration waves.

So do they have tools or don't they?
The reason government's haven't is because, EU migrants are a net positive. They bring in tax money and make our country richer. Why would you want to control and slow this down?

 

[Touring Mars]

But far as I can see, best solution is to staying in the EU is another vote.

Again, I wouldn't have put it that way, but I do see what you are getting at.

I agree that a second referendum is likely the only way that Brexit can be stopped, but paradoxically a second vote also makes a no deal Brexit much more likely - that's a heck of a gamble.

As I've said before, I don't believe that there is enough public support for any possible deal to command an absolute majority (which is the whole point of a referendum). As such, allowing a public vote on the deal makes zero sense; the government would almost certainly lose - and with it goes any chance of a negotiated deal with the EU.

A 'People's Vote' would not simply be a rejection of the specific deal put forward by Theresa May, but a rejection of all possible deals, thus practically guaranteeing that there will be no deal with the EU. Some of the more optimistic Remainers might believe that this puts them in the driving seat, but in reality it actually plays right into the hands of the hardest Brexiteers whose aim it is to have no deal. In reality, it is more likely than not to leave us facing the daunting prospect of nobody in charge of negotiations with the EU, a mandate to reverse Brexit but with no way (and nobody) to do it, and a rapidly approaching hard deadline with little chance of pushing it back.

As an alternative, a watered-down Chequers deal that keeps the UK tied to the EU indefinitely sounds far preferable.

 

[baldgye]

Again, I wouldn't have put it that way, but I do see what you are getting at.

I agree that a second referendum is likely the only way that Brexit can be stopped, but paradoxically a second vote also makes a no deal Brexit much more likely - that's a heck of a gamble.

As I've said before, I don't believe that there is enough public support for any possible deal to command an absolute majority (which is the whole point of a referendum). As such, allowing a public vote on the deal makes zero sense; the government would almost certainly lose - and with it goes any chance of a negotiated deal with the EU.

A 'People's Vote' would not simply be a rejection of the specific deal put forward by Theresa May, but a rejection of all possible deals, thus practically guaranteeing that there will be no deal with the EU. Some of the more optimistic Remainers might believe that this puts them in the driving seat, but in reality it actually plays right into the hands of the hardest Brexiteers whose aim it is to have no deal. In reality, it is more likely than not to leave us facing the daunting prospect of nobody in charge of negotiations with the EU, a mandate to reverse Brexit but with no way (and nobody) to do it, and a rapidly approaching hard deadline with little chance of pushing it back.

As an alternative, a watered-down Chequers deal that keeps the UK tied to the EU indefinitely sounds far preferable.

Yeah I see what you mean, but I don’t see an alternative to fighting Brexit.

Deal or not it will be the ruin of the country. The EU won’t want that because all it will do is make us more dependent on the EU’s mercy and help grow resentment and hatred.

Given what the EU has said, I feel that if there was another vote and it goes how you say it would (which is a pretty fair assessment), I feel that the EU instead of allowing the U.K. to crash and burn, would give us the time needed in order to sort ourselves out politically. They’ve said as much in the past and I don’t see how the U.K. being crippled would help anyone.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I was conflating accidental brexit with us voting not to do it and it happening, and the plan of May's not being accepted by the EU or the lower house and us leaving without a plan. I guess that's my fault for not being clear. But far as I can see, best solution is to staying in the EU is another vote. All major party leaders have made it clear they don't care or don't want to fight the government.



So do they have tools or don't they?
The reason government's haven't is because, EU migrants are a net positive. They bring in tax money and make our country richer. Why would you want to control and slow this down?

Because there are MILLIONS too many people in this country. There aren't enough houses for everyone, that drives house prices up so people on significant incomes can't get on the housing ladder.

 

[baldgye]

Because there are MILLIONS too many people in this country. There aren't enough houses for everyone, that drives house prices up so people on significant incomes can't get on the housing ladder.

So the problem isn’t immigration, it’s housing availability. How would stopping or controlling strictly EU migration solve this problem?

And the billions (yeah) it would cost to set these systems of controls up are worth it, over just investing that money in actual housing?

 

[Kano Manel]

So do they have tools or don't they?
The reason government's haven't is because, EU migrants are a net positive. They bring in tax money and make our country richer. Why would you want to control and slow this down?

Nothing about Brexit has an easy answer (and at the end what we do here is just sharing opinions... way better than in other forums, I have to say ).
Actually, instead of writing strong sentences and affirmations, I think I'll approach this with questions, because at the end of the day none of us has real answers, just opinions.

So do they have tools or don't they?

The tools are there but UK politicians react like a deer in the middle of the road, dazzled by the full beam of a car, immobile and without a real idea of what is coming and what to do about it.

They bring in tax money and make our country richer

This is true, but the rate of growth is perhaps to high? In an era in which the growth is high (and therefore the demand of public services), the government is not supporting that demand, is still implementing cuts. We are seeing the public services collapsing everyday: NHS, Police, transport and so on. Where is the money of tax payers?
Maybe, just maybe, a 0.5% of population growth/year is not sustainable, and tools should have been implemented long time ago but they weren't.

Brexit is going to mitigate this? yes, I think so. But the lack of backbone displayed by politicians makes me think that the whole thing is going to be poorly handled. Brexit itself shouldn't be a big problem, as leavers have been saying since day one; the real big problem is how badly is going to be managed (is easy to get an idea just by judging how bad the negotiation is being managed too)

So, in conclusion... perhaps both, leavers and remainers, are right at the same time, if you think about it. Brexit should make britain better off (as leavers say), but at the end is more likely to confirm all fears by remainers, just because the way is going to be handled.

I don't see leadership at all in British politicians, even Jacob Rees-Mogg came today with the visionary 1.1 trillion. God help us, where did they got that number from? and the 8% reduction in food price thanks to WTO? Britain cannot join WTO because cannot close it's borders, which is a requirement to join WTO. Every day I see examples of mismanagement and lack of leadership, which I think will be the weak spot of Brexit at the end.

 

[baldgye]

Nothing about Brexit has an easy answer (and at the end what we do here is just sharing opinions... way better than in other forums, I have to say ).
Actually, instead of writing strong sentences and affirmations, I think I'll approach this with questions, because at the end of the day none of us has real answers, just opinions.

The tools are there but UK politicians react like a deer in the middle of the road, dazzled by the full beam of a car, immobile and without a real idea of what is coming and what to do about it.


This is true, but the rate of growth is perhaps to high? In an era in which the growth is high (and therefore the demand of public services), the government is not supporting that demand, is still implementing cuts. We are seeing the public services collapsing everyday: NHS, Police, transport and so on. Where is the money of tax payers?
Maybe, just maybe, a 0.5% of population growth/year is not sustainable, and tools should have been implemented long time ago but they weren't.

Brexit is going to mitigate this? yes, I think so. But the lack of backbone displayed by politicians makes me think that the whole thing is going to be poorly handled. Brexit itself shouldn't be a big problem, as leavers have been saying since day one; the real big problem is how badly is going to be managed (is easy to get an idea just by judging how bad the negotiation is being managed too)

So, in conclusion... perhaps both, leavers and remainers, are right at the same time, if you think about it. Brexit should make britain better off (as leavers say), but at the end is more likely to confirm all fears by remainers, just because the way is going to be handled.

I don't see leadership at all in British politicians, even Jacob Rees-Mogg came today with the visionary 1.1 trillion. God help us, where did they got that number from? and the 8% reduction in food price thanks to WTO? Britain cannot join WTO because cannot close it's borders, which is a requirement to join WTO. Every day I see examples of mismanagement and lack of leadership, which I think will be the weak spot of Brexit at the end.

I can kinda see what you mean, if you think growth is an issue then sure, in theory kicking everyone who hasn't got a certificate out is a 'solution'.
The problem, is that those immigrants are the ones supporting the growth, not only via taxes but also employment. Look at the NHS and it's dire lack of nurses and doctors.

The solution isn't Brexit at all, the solution is making sure big business pays its dues. This is a monumental failure of the global economy. Companies like Apple (for example) are able to dance around tax law and pay next to nothing, while public funds that their employees need and depend on are funded by the poorest. Look at how many millionaires are able to doge tax.
The solution to this is better international cooperation and laws that prevent this (going back to Apple, like the EU fining them). Isolationism only helps the wealthy.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Because there are MILLIONS too many people in this country. There aren't enough houses for everyone, that drives house prices up so people on significant incomes can't get on the housing ladder.

Housing developers and estate agents drive house prices up. The demand is there, they manage the supply to their own ends.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Because there are MILLIONS too many people in this country. There aren't enough houses for everyone, that drives house prices up so people on significant incomes can't get on the housing ladder.

Which is just not true.

The British housing market is struggling for several key reasons:

1) Lack of high quality down-sizing. People are living longer, and staying in their homes longer. People with families stay in the family homes long after they need a 4 bedroom home because the alternative is to downsize to lower quality housing. 7.3m homes underoccupied, up 50% since 90s.

2) Centralism. People are rushing to London because that is where the investment is and because the infrastructure outside of London is so poor. HS2 will make central London commuting distance from Birmingham, but Cardiff will still be 2.5 hours from London. Cardiff itself is poorly served by public transport and suffers the same issue of rising house prices.

3) Second homes. Estimates between 0.6m and 1.5m. Usually greatest impact is on rural communities where wealthy people can afford to pay higher prices for homes otherwise available to seasonal workers.

 

[baldgye]

3) Second homes. Estimates between 0.6m and 1.5m. Usually greatest impact is on rural communities where wealthy people can afford to pay higher prices for homes otherwise available to seasonal workers.

What's funny is that Brexit will increase the abilities of tiny % of people to own vast %'s of the housing market.

 

[baldgye]

Still though, bloody immigrants!

 

[Touring Mars]

This week could well be the week when the Brexit hits the fan, as senior Tory rebels are threatening to overthrow Theresa May if she doesn't ditch her current Brexit plan.

It could be a very interesting week or two to say the least. Theresa May is likely going to have to appeal to opposition MPs in order to get her Brexit plan through parliament, as a group of around 50-70 Tory MPs plan to vote against her.

-

What is happening right now is really quite unprecedented. A group called the ERG (European Research Group), which mainly consists of senior Tory Brexiteers, is presenting its plans for a different Brexit deal to that currently proposed and supported by the Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, in the EU, Jean Claude-Juncker, the president of the European Commission, has stressed once again that the EU cannot accept a deal where the UK 'stays in parts of the Single Market and not others', which is what the UK Prime Minister's proposal effectively is.

The ERG are trying to convince both the UK government and the EU that their plan is the right way forward, but it remains to be seen what effect (if any) it will have.

 

[baldgye]

What is happening right now is really quite unprecedented. A group called the ERG (European Research Group), which mainly consists of senior Tory Brexiteers, is presenting its plans for a different Brexit deal to that currently proposed and supported by the Prime Minister.

Their plan for NI is hilarious. First off they attack NI for being in the way of the negotiations (despite it being ignored for almost this entire debacle) and then say that basically, nothing will change. The police will continue to do their job of preventing smuggling as they do at the moment... They literally have no plan

 

[Dotini]

...Jean Claude-Juncker, the president of the European Commission...

In his latest act of suicidal madness, this guy proposes that foreign policy be centrally controlled, with member states having no possibility of veto. It's like he's egging on Europeans to a bet-your-life choice between national sovereignty and perpetual slavery to centralized authority.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In his latest act of suicidal madness, this guy proposes that foreign policy be centrally controlled, with member states having no possibility of veto. It's like he's egging on Europeans to a bet-your-life choice between national sovereignty and perpetual slavery to centralized authority.

It makes little difference to Britain, all four countries suffer that anyway

 

[Mr Tree]

In his latest act of suicidal madness, this guy proposes that foreign policy be centrally controlled, with member states having no possibility of veto. It's like he's egging on Europeans to a bet-your-life choice between national sovereignty and perpetual slavery to centralized authority.

Or he is trying to get the eu to be a federal institution with the current countries being member states?

Are you in a state of perpetual slavery to the US federal government?

The way you seem to describe it is very one sided. Both perspectives have a grain of truth.

 

[Touring Mars]

Methinks it is hardly a coincidence that the 'time for European sovereignty has come' just as the UK is set to leave.

Does anyone really believe that the EU wants to reverse Brexit?!

Meanwhile, despite attempting to put a brave face on it, even the Guardian has had to admit that Juncker has just defecated on the Chequers plan from a great height, dismissing the central aim of the plan as something the EU 'cannot' accept.