Politics, politics, politics

[Glenda's Legs]

For those that don't agree with Brexit!

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215/signatures/thank-you

And that would be wrong imo. I am not wholly comfortable with the outcome, too much uncertainty and I remain unconvinced that we will end up any better off than we are now even in the long run, and possibly worse off.
However, we are a democracy (of sorts) and the vote has to stand.
We just have to hope that our political leaders will be strong enough - and focused enough on the important matters - to negotiate the deals, trade and otherwise, that we will need to move forward.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

I'm no expert but the way I see it we are lumped with an immigration system which we don't believe in and in my opinion does not work - we should adopt the approach which countries like Australian and Canada take whereby if you have the required skills in the areas which we are lacking then welcome aboard - what we have is freedom of movement where unskilled people come here in high numbers and flood job markets which don't need filling, which drives wages down and British people out of jobs...

Every country needs healthy immigration to improve itself, but it needs to be managed properly for it to work, for all involved

I'm pro immigration, but not how it appears to be handled here in GB


Like I say I'm no expert, Im just offering my view on things

Australia's immigration is higher, pro-rata, than that into the UK.

(I don't have a link - it was mentioned on one of the many debates on 5 Live before the vote).

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Focusing on people like that is wrong and you know it. There's a lot more to the leave camp than solely immigration.

But it was by far largest message that cut through to the man in the street, just like him.

 

[SpurMeUp]

And that would be wrong imo. I am not wholly comfortable with the outcome, too much uncertainty and I remain unconvinced that we will end up any better off than we are now even in the long run, and possibly worse off.
However, we are a democracy (of sorts) and the vote has to stand.
We just have to hope that our political leaders will be strong enough - and focused enough on the important matters - to negotiate the deals, trade and otherwise, that we will need to move forward.

But its an impossible task. People have been promised things that are simply not possible. I'm an optimist, but deconstruct it, and you can't have access to the single market, no spend into the EU, no free movement and free trade. There has to be some compromise.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

But its an impossible task. People have been promised things that are simply not possible. I'm an optimist, but deconstruct it, and you can't have access to the single market, no spend into the EU, no free movement and free trade. There has to be some compromise.

Totally agree, we will not (cannot) have what we have now.

The winners in this will be lawyers and advisers who must be absolutely rubbing their hands with glee.

 

[elltrev]

I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but for some reason I can't for the life of me wrap my head around how immigration affects job availability for people who already live here - to what extent it's a zero sum game. I just can't work out whether or how an external person joining the economy (i.e. immigrant coming and getting a job) can create additional jobs that wouldn't have been created if the original job had been taken by a native instead.

Anyone want to take the time to explain it to me, or point towards a good article?

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but for some reason I can't for the life of me wrap my head around how immigration affects job availability for people who already live here - to what extent it's a zero sum game. I just can't work out whether or how an external person joining the economy (i.e. immigrant coming and getting a job) can create additional jobs that wouldn't have been created if the original job had been taken by a native instead.

Anyone want to take the time to explain it to me, or point towards a good article?

Immigration doesn't help working classes get jobs. Not directly anyway. If you're a builder, and there are 3 other immigrant builders who are good at their job, quoting less than you, of course it does you no good.

What it does do, is stimulate the economy. Building is made easier, as there are more people available, its cheaper to build, and the quality improves. Which stimulates the economy, makes the UK wealthier, which in theory feeds back into communities, and creates even more building jobs. To be fair this has actually been the case with the UK, our economy is so focused on the housing market. People buying, doing up, selling, building homes etc. It wouldn't have been possible without migrant workers - many doing the unskilled building jobs and it stimulated the housing market leading to more jobs. Without migrant workers, we would need to train more people, which hasn't happened, and few Brits want the sh1t dirty jobs, so yes it has been essential to our economy.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Best case scenario is a few others leaving and the EU falling apart. Then we can all start a free trade bloc with no external tariffs, no subsidies and a resolution that this is all the group will ever be, signed in blood.

Things dragging out is not necessarily the worst scenario. The EU is clearly suffering on its exchanges, they want the uncertainty done with as Germany can't prop everyone up indefinitely and the Netherlands will be gone in no time if they're asked to stump up more. We have a very strong hand all the time their markets are falling faster than ours (not something predicted by the doomsayers over the last few months BTW).

The EU will remain intact as long as it suits Germany and France, once it no longer works for them they will pull the plug.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

It certainly isn't wrong no.

For many immigration was key. Rightly so it's damaging our nation. However, many remember this country pre EU. I don't however so voted leave in the hope we can govern ourselves, save billions a year and negotiate our own deals with who we decide we want to.

It took the EU 7 years to negotiate a trade deal with Canada. (Source: 5 Live)

Now the UK has to negotiate multiple deals with multiple countries in just 2 years?

Best of luck with that.

 

[Baleforce]

It took the EU 7 years to negotiate a trade deal with Canada. (Source: 5 Live)

Now the UK has to negotiate multiple deals with multiple countries in just 2 years?

Best of luck with that.

surely the leave campaign started working on that via back channels as soon as the referendum was called?

they must be 6 months in

 

[Craig_J]

This talk about holding a second referendum is ridiculous. Should not be one for at least a decade. You can't keep holding one to get the result you want. It's shown how divided the nation is and that won't change any time soon. The vote will always be close and we can't hold one every year. Not only would that be undemocratic but it would, I imagine, be very expensive. We probably need to keep that cash to fund new referendums all over the UK.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

It took the EU 7 years to negotiate a trade deal with Canada. (Source: 5 Live)

Now the UK has to negotiate multiple deals with multiple countries in just 2 years?

Best of luck with that.

What a super efficient, high powered group, filled with the best brains in europe took 7 years, were they being payed by the hour?

 

[Baleforce]

This talk about holding a second referendum is ridiculous. Should not be one for at least a decade. You can't keep holding one to get the result you want. It's shown how divided the nation is and that won't change any time soon. The vote will always be close and we can't hold one every year. Not only would that be undemocratic but it would, I imagine, be very expensive. We probably need to keep that cash to fund new referendums all over the UK.

I completely agree, 52/48 the other way and people will still moan

the next time any referendum is held however, a minimum threshold for a binding result should be set, 60% either way for example

personally, I don't think they should be used, we have a general election every 5 years, we should trust the govt to make such decisions

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

What a super efficient, high powered group, filled with the best brains in europe took 7 years, were they being payed by the hour?

Or maybe the other side had some input too.

Just like a transfer saga... "Get it done, Levy" doesn't take into account the player, his agent or the other club's stance.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

I completely agree, 52/48 the other way and people will still moan

the next time any referendum is held however, a minimum threshold for a binding result should be set, 60% either way for example

personally, I don't think they should be used, we have a general election every 5 years, we should trust the govt to make such decisions

Yes, you have to ask whether a question of this importance and complexity should ever go directly to the people.

Especially when this referendum was offered as a way to guard against defectors to UKIP.

 

[AuroRaman]

This talk about holding a second referendum is ridiculous. Should not be one for at least a decade. You can't keep holding one to get the result you want. It's shown how divided the nation is and that won't change any time soon. The vote will always be close and we can't hold one every year. Not only would that be undemocratic but it would, I imagine, be very expensive. We probably need to keep that cash to fund new referendums all over the UK.

100%. It's ludicrous to motion for that and it's embarrassing to see a petition for a re-vote reach over one million signatures.

 

[parklane1]

Completely agree we should be focused on righting these important issues. Problem is Government will now be focused on dealing with Brexit, a massive amount of work for all Government Departments. These important issues have been erroneously attributed to the EU. The health service, school places and inequality has very little to do with the EU. The UK controls these areas, as well as how many migrants come in from outside the EU into the UK; and we had more coming in from outside the EU than from the EU.

So was the problem the EU, or the UK government in your opinion?

Affordable Housing, Inequality, Skills Development, School Places, the overstretched Health Service are the real issues. We could have borrowed more, to invest in housing for example. It probably would have stimulated the economy, and helped people (but Miliband who proposed this had a terrible image and was un-electable). So this government has held-off borrowing more to provide any of these things, spending has contracted, and the Conservatives don't mind you blaming the EU for it all.

We should be cutting government spending in many areas imo. The civil service is horribly inefficient, welfare needs reform etc. But we should also be investing in peoples skills and housing. If migrants are coming here better qualified than our own people, then we need to invest in our own people with better schools and training, and everyone deserves to have a home. Two basic principles that this government has neglected, in favour of keeping the markets, bankers, home and company owners - in short 'their own' the wealthy - happy. But that is what the Conservative Party has always been about. Their name comes from conserving the wealth and power for the elite. That is their history. Nurses are effectively paying for millionaire bankers. Teachers don't get pay rises, as we bail out banks. There is massive inequality and injustice and this government has not addressed it. What has this got to do with the EU?

That you blame the EU for things that are under our national control is no bad thing for this Government.

I I can't dance with most of that, however the EU are partly responsible for the vast number of people we have in our small island and which is partly to blame for our overcrowding and the pressure its put on our services.

Whatever all these arguments/ debates/opinions have all been done to death before the referendum took place and all we are all doing is going round in circles. The fact/truth is that there was a democratic vote made ( where EVERY vote counted) and the remain side lost, it does the remain supporters no favours to keep going on about the rights and wrongs of the issues because all its doing is showing them as bad losers ( at best).

 

[parklane1]

And that would be wrong imo. I am not wholly comfortable with the outcome, too much uncertainty and I remain unconvinced that we will end up any better off than we are now even in the long run, and possibly worse off.
However, we are a democracy (of sorts) and the vote has to stand.
We just have to hope that our political leaders will be strong enough - and focused enough on the important matters - to negotiate the deals, trade and otherwise, that we will need to move forward.

I agree with you, its bloody stupid and childish to say we should have another vote just because the remain side lost and now some are throwing their toys out of the pram. What happens in the next general Election when those that disagree with the winners ask for another vote. I have never heard so much rubbish in my life.

I know in todays world excuses are branded about like confetti but jésus what a joke.

 

[Craig_J]

100%. It's ludicrous to motion for that and it's embarrassing to see a petition for a re-vote reach over one million signatures.

The equivalent in football terms would be demanding a rematch because you only lost 1-0 to a 90th minute winner and dominated the game. IN the end the only thing that matters is the goal and result. Requesting a rematch at all is nothing but bitterness and petulance.

 

[Craig_J]

I completely agree, 52/48 the other way and people will still moan

the next time any referendum is held however, a minimum threshold for a binding result should be set, 60% either way for example

personally, I don't think they should be used, we have a general election every 5 years, we should trust the govt to make such decisions

Problem with that is we might end up holding a referendum each year and after a decade still be very split. We can't hold a referendum each year because 60% wasn't met. It's a nice idea and probably more democratic but in practice it wouldn't work.

Also if 9 out of 10 times leave was to win by a handful of percentage points it would be undemocratic to say that the 1 out 10 occurrence of a remain vote of over 60% is the only one that matters.