Would you change your vote ?

[Smartbear]

All the points about immigration ignore the fact that it has been hugely beneficial for this country.They pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits (about £20bn per year is the estimate). If we wish to reduce levels of immigration then we must accept that we will all be economically worse off. Like many countries in the western world we suffer from an ageing population. Immigrants sustain the NHS, the social care sector and many other industries. The reason people choose to move to the UK is because there are jobs that need filling. Unemployment levels are at historically low levels so you can't even ague they are taking UK citizens jobs. Freedom of movement is only incompatible with a health system if governments fail to plan properly

Its not very well known but the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, already allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves. We could have used that but successive governments have chosen not to do so because they know that immigration has been of huge benefit to this country.

I was raised in a large Lancashire town in the 1950-60s which now looks like its sits within a foreign country due to mass immigration. I left in 1970, but I can imagine that many people who still live there, and many similar places like it, would tell you that mass uncontrolled immigration is THE reason why the UK voted for Brexit. My relatives who still live there hate it.

I am sure you are right to assert that immigration was the main reason the UK voted to leave. I am equally sure that many of those peoples lives would be worse without the contribution that immigrants make to their lives. Interested to know why your relatives hate the immigrants in Lancashire?

Most people don’t like change, if your home town hadn’t seen much change over the years & suddenly experienced a seismic shift that can be unsettling as the character of a place is very swiftly unrecognisable.
I worked in London for years & on the tube often found that no audible conversation was understandable, the older you are the less welcome this is and can make locals feel like outsiders imho
Rob

 

[captain caveman]

I,d still vote to leave.
I new exactly what i was voting for, I wasent voting for any kind of deal i was voting to leave simple as that.
If you think Europe wouldn't want to deal with us or would like to punish us to set an example, Yes the politicians and Governments would love to do this.
But just look around you at how much of your everyday life has come over from Europe.
Were the 5th biggest economy in the world do you think company's in Europe are going to want to lose that trade? I think not.
The problem was May wanted to try and please all everyone, that simply wasent going to be possible and now were stuck with the mess were in now.

 

[Angelus666]

No denying immigration policy was a key factor in the vote, and probably the most contentious issue for discussion. Does it add, does it cost....who really knows. Doctors, nurses, accountants, footballers....all add more than they cost I guess....but car washers, bar staff, Uber drivers, but do they really add more to the system? I'd like to see an actual figure that people have to contribute in PAYE that qualifies them as a benefit to the system.

Then on the other hand if we truly believe an open door immigration policy is good for the country, then why don't we open this up to all of Africa, Asia and anyone else who wants to come in, why limit it to Europe...where would be the problem with that? Britain, Germany have seen huge net migration this past decade, whereas Spain, Portugal, Greece have all massively declined. Is it really for the UK taxpayer to prop these countries up for spending way beyond their means?

My biggest hope for Brexit is that the government takes the opportunity to impose strict tax rules on the huge corporations that earn billions from this country and pay £0 back into the system. I know this won't happen, probably the opposite. But what I see with the EU, is that it's set up to promote the b*llsh*t tax havens in the region that allow them all to bypass their social obligations with clever accounting....in my mind, it's the most disgusting thing we have in the world right now.

Rant over

 

[Mr Tidy]

I voted to leave (ready to get flamed)!

But I'm totally in favour of free trade, and it wasn't because I have a particular issue with immigration.

My decision was based more on the EU "you'll do as you are told" mentality.

Our courts reach a decision, but then the European Court of Human Rights decides something else - we don't need that sort of meddling!

The EU decides petrol has to have a certain percentage of Ethanol in it, so we have to adopt the same dogma - why?

But the current mess shouldn't really surprise anyone - when Eton Dave stepped down because he got it all wrong what we didn't need was a successor who was a Remainer. Especially one who is far too conciliatory to get a good deal - we needed someone with some balls!

Such a shame Maggie wasn't doing this deal - she'd have told the EU to go and do one instead of coming back with nothing as Eton Dave and Theresa have done.

I'd rather leave with no deal than the one offered - then maybe people's minds in the EU oligarchy would start to get some focus.

For over a decade the EU didn't want us joining, but we stupidly did.

This is our one chance to escape from that fiasco - whatever the consequences I hope desperately that we take it.

 

[Vornwend]

They don't hate immigrants, i.e. the people that have come to the UK, they simply hate the mass immigration policy and the difference it has made to the region. I suspect that is the same in many other regions which have been inundated by different cultures without them having any say whatsoever over the changes it makes to their lives.

My niece has to send her children to schools out of her district because the local school is full. My niece's daughter, aged 6, is one of just 3 children in her class who was born in the district. Do you and your sons think that's a benefit of immigration?

I suppose some of these things are inevitable if we want to continue to be a country that grows and is able to sustain its ageing population? The alternative is not that attractive in my opinion. I can certainly understand the frustration on school places but that is surely a failure to plan by the government/local authority? I don't understand why whether the children were born in the district makes any difference? People move more than they used to, that's just the way the world is now.

 

[Vornwend]

Our courts reach a decision, but then the European Court of Human Rights decides something else - we don't need that sort of meddling!

In 2017, 512 cases were brought against the UK, however, 99 percent of these cases were thrown out as ‘inadmissible’, with substantive decisions being made in only five cases. Of these, three judgments (0.6 percent) were in the UK’s favour and only two (0.4 percent) were against. 2 cases is hardly meddling is it - its yet another myth I'm afraid not that it has the slightest relevance to a debate about the EU as the court is completely separate to the EU and EU Court of Justice!

The EU decides petrol has to have a certain percentage of Ethanol in it, so we have to adopt the same dogma - why?

Not aware of any EU law on this? Notwithstanding that adding Ethanol is designed to reduce pollution - a good thing surely?

 

[MrPT]

Were the 5th biggest economy in the world do you think company's in Europe are going to want to lose that trade?

Of course not, but we have more to lose. We run a large trade deficit and we have a heavy bias towards services in what we export. We need to partially reindustrialise and somehow not get too shafted as we become dependent on more distant trading partners. This goes against one of the major patterns in bilateral trade around the world. Closer is better.

 

[Mr Tidy]

Not aware of any EU law on this? Notwithstanding that adding Ethanol is designed to reduce pollution - a good thing surely?

Well I suppose it's a good thing if you don't mind the fuel system on your car getting trashed! Or using something that can cause blood cancer, corrodes steel, fibreglass & aluminium, and rots rubber - but it's your choice!

https://www.morebikes.co.uk/3549/truth-ethanol-e10-fuel/

 

[Smartbear]

Ethanol also gives less mpg so it’s a case of diminishing returns surely even if it is a slightly “greener” fuel :?
Rob

 

[buzyg]

Ethanol also gives less mpg so it’s a case of diminishing returns surely even if it is a slightly “greener” fuel :?
Rob

Agree completely Mr bear.

 

[MrPT]

Not aware of any EU law on this?

It’s the renewable energy directive. Don’t think it specifies bioethanol, but that seems to offer an easy way for member states to make a big dent in their targets. The EU is ploughing (wahey!) ahead with the policy prior to the impact of higher ethanol content fuel being fully understood - in terms of engine damage but also the embodied carbon and energy usage from its production.

 

[Jembo]

Seems this thread keeps going round in circles, focusing on what was.

Now we’ve got to this point, what’s your plan if you were in charge....& what would you do differently?

 

[Ewazix]

A virtual split decision last time. 1.5 million previous voters have died. 2 million new voters now eligible who will live the consequences. A political stalemate over an agreement that does not meet anybodies wants or needs and zero prospect of anything better being available.
All the parties are split. A three question binding referendum seems fair and democratic.
1. Out no deal
2. Out on current terms offered
3. Stay and try and reform from within the EU

If no party is willing to implement the result then a temporary emergency government of national unity to do so.

 

[Jembo]

A virtual split decision last time. 1.5 million previous voters have died. 2 million new voters now eligible who will live the consequences. A political stalemate over an agreement that does not meet anybodies wants or needs and zero prospect of anything better being available.
All the parties are split. A three question binding referendum seems fair and democratic.
1. Out no deal
2. Out on current terms offered
3. Stay and try and reform from within the EU

If no party is willing to implement the result then a temporary emergency government of national unity to do so.

As a remainer, I disagree on a democratic basis making it 3 way.

I propose the first question must be accept May’s deal, yes or no. If yes we go ahead with Brexit on agreed terms.

If no to May, then & only then can the remain or hard Brexit be put back on the table in a ‘second phased’ vote on the same ballot paper.

 

[Ewazix]

A virtual split decision last time. 1.5 million previous voters have died. 2 million new voters now eligible who will live the consequences. A political stalemate over an agreement that does not meet anybodies wants or needs and zero prospect of anything better being available.
All the parties are split. A three question binding referendum seems fair and democratic.
1. Out no deal
2. Out on current terms offered
3. Stay and try and reform from within the EU

If no party is willing to implement the result then a temporary emergency government of national unity to do so.

As a remainer, I disagree on a democratic basis making it 3 way.

I propose the first question must be accept May’s deal, yes or no. If yes we go ahead with Brexit on agreed terms.

If no to May, then & only then can the remain or hard Brexit be put back on the table in a ‘second phased’ vote on the same ballot paper.

I'd go with that as well.

 

[Vornwend]

Its a right royal mess. I quite like the idea of a phased vote although at the moment we don't even know what we are voting for as the final trade deal has not been agreed. I'd also like some independent analysis of the impact on trade, prices and industries of a hard brexit. Being completely idealistic I'd like the parties to sign up to agreeing to accept that analysis. The average man in the street does not have the time or resources to conduct his own. Of course its almost impossible to claim any analysis is truly independent but there are so many myths on both sides and not enough time has been spent debunking them in my opinion

 

[exdos]

All the points about immigration ignore the fact that it has been hugely beneficial for this country.They pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits (about £20bn per year is the estimate). If we wish to reduce levels of immigration then we must accept that we will all be economically worse off.

Using figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), for mid-2007 the UK population size was 61.3 million and by mid-2017 the population size was just over 66million. That's an increase of more than 4.7million people (7.66%) in just 10years. That's almost the total combined population of Northern Ireland and Wales at 5.045million. Most of this population increase has been absorbed by England. You claim that such a population increase, largely through immigration, is "hugely beneficial" and suggest that this can be estimated to be worth some £20bn per annum in taxes, but the fact is, a population of 4.7 million requires the infrastructure equivalent of that that already exists in the whole of Northern Ireland and Wales! The fact is, we have not seen required infrastructure projects of such scale in England over the past 10 years. As such we're packed into England like sardines and where all our public services, housing, education, health service, transportation, water and waste management etc., are stretched to their absolute limits. The sum of £20bn per annum would go absolutely nowhere towards building the necessary infrastructure to properly accommodate the population increase of 4.7m in the last 10 years.

I suppose some of these things are inevitable if we want to continue to be a country that grows and is able to sustain its ageing population? The alternative is not that attractive in my opinion. I can certainly understand the frustration on school places but that is surely a failure to plan by the government/local authority?

The UK has been made into an "open house" by the EU. Our government has been unable to plan for, or contain, mass migration from within the EU because Freedom of Movement has been enforced upon us and legislated from outside the UK Parliament.

I don't understand why whether the children were born in the district makes any difference? People move more than they used to, that's just the way the world is now.

Clearly you haven't been negatively affected in any way by mass migration into the UK, whereas the likes of my niece and her family and millions of others in similar situations, suffer at the sharp-end of it. Indigenous people in any part of the world do not like being displaced by outsiders.

Using my niece's district as an example of why the UK voted for Brexit; I see that in the Referendum, 63.9% voted to leave from a turnout of 69.2% and that in the General Election that followed in 2017, 62.2% voted for a Labour MP (with a 10.1% increased majority) on a turnout of 63.1%. From that I would suggest that any potential accusation of right-wing racism being a hidden motive for such a constituency to vote for Brexit is untrue. Likewise, from stats from the ONS in that constituency, only 26% of the population is over 65 and only 4% is aged over 85, as such, a majority of younger voters MUST have voted Leave. I think that this debunks the perpetual claim by young Remainers that Brexit voters are mainly the elderly and uneducated. The real situation is that the people of all ages, in areas which have voted overwhelmingly to Leave, are those who suffer most from mass uncontrolled immigration and that more of the electorate suffer than those than those who don't.

 

[exdos]

3. Stay and try and reform from within the EU

Dream on!

When the UK first entered the EEC we had 2 of 13 EEC Commissioners giving us 15.4% representation within the EEC of 9 member states. Now that there are 28 member states we have just one EU Commissioner giving us just 3.6% representation. Whatever metrics you care to choose for percentage representation in the EU, the UK's representation has considerably diminished.

The majority of new members, if not all, get a "free ride" within the EU so they inevitably vote for whatever the Junta wants. To step out of line would have huge financial impact and that's the way that the EU gets unity when the UK Parliament gets split.

No individual country has a hope in hell of reforming the EU from within and the UK has spent over 40 years trying!

 

[Darkangelv2]

All the points about immigration ignore the fact that it has been hugely beneficial for this country.They pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits (about £20bn per year is the estimate). If we wish to reduce levels of immigration then we must accept that we will all be economically worse off.

Using figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), for mid-2007 the UK population size was 61.3 million and by mid-2017 the population size was just over 66million. That's an increase of more than 4.7million people (7.66%) in just 10years. That's almost the total combined population of Northern Ireland and Wales at 5.045million. Most of this population increase has been absorbed by England. You claim that such a population increase, largely through immigration, is "hugely beneficial" and suggest that this can be estimated to be worth some £20bn per annum in taxes, but the fact is, a population of 4.7 million requires the infrastructure equivalent of that that already exists in the whole of Northern Ireland and Wales! The fact is, we have not seen required infrastructure projects of such scale in England over the past 10 years. As such we're packed into England like sardines and where all our public services, housing, education, health service, transportation, water and waste management etc., are stretched to their absolute limits. The sum of £20bn per annum would go absolutely nowhere towards building the necessary infrastructure to properly accommodate the population increase of 4.7m in the last 10 years.

I suppose some of these things are inevitable if we want to continue to be a country that grows and is able to sustain its ageing population? The alternative is not that attractive in my opinion. I can certainly understand the frustration on school places but that is surely a failure to plan by the government/local authority?

The UK has been made into an "open house" by the EU. Our government has been unable to plan for, or contain, mass migration from within the EU because Freedom of Movement has been enforced upon us and legislated from outside the UK Parliament.

I don't understand why whether the children were born in the district makes any difference? People move more than they used to, that's just the way the world is now.

Clearly you haven't been negatively affected in any way by mass migration into the UK, whereas the likes of my niece and her family and millions of others in similar situations, suffer at the sharp-end of it. Indigenous people in any part of the world do not like being displaced by outsiders.

Using my niece's district as an example of why the UK voted for Brexit; I see that in the Referendum, 63.9% voted to leave from a turnout of 69.2% and that in the General Election that followed in 2017, 62.2% voted for a Labour MP (with a 10.1% increased majority) on a turnout of 63.1%. From that I would suggest that any potential accusation of right-wing racism being a hidden motive for such a constituency to vote for Brexit is untrue. Likewise, from stats from the ONS in that constituency, only 26% of the population is over 65 and only 4% is aged over 85, as such, a majority of younger voters MUST have voted Leave. I think that this debunks the perpetual claim by young Remainers that Brexit voters are mainly the elderly and uneducated. The real situation is that the people of all ages, in areas which have voted overwhelmingly to Leave, are those who suffer most from mass uncontrolled immigration and that more of the electorate suffer than those than those who don't.

Surely the 'problem' with immigration is that the government have failed to adapt their tax strategy to cope?

If the vast majority of Europeans who have migrated here are net positive tax providers then we have presumably created a shift in balance of lower tax payers vs high - individuals being simply 'net positive' isn't covering the bills with the current tax system.

What should always have been clear is the super rich and big business' are the group who benefitted from the wider labour market and should therefore foot the bill for the increased infrastructure spend required to go with it (schools, hospital, transport etc.)

 

[exdos]

Surely the 'problem' with immigration is that the government have failed to adapt their tax strategy to cope?

If the vast majority of Europeans who have migrated here are net positive tax providers then we have presumably created a shift in balance of lower tax payers vs high - individuals being simply 'net positive' isn't covering the bills with the current tax system.

What should always have been clear is the super rich and big business' are the group who benefitted from the wider labour market and should therefore foot the bill for the increased infrastructure spend required to go with it (schools, hospital, transport etc.)

I agree. Mass migration is the result of "Globalisation" which is driven by the mega super-rich and their big businesses. They couldn't give a sh*t about the circumstances of the proles who generate their wealth. Unfortunately, governments around the world are controlled by such "elite" and they are "untouchable" in law.