Sorry Beddy, but I'm afraid that's simply not true. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html I'm interested that you're not prepared to argue the point about them given that, within the past hour, you've stated that those "silly rules and regulations" were a reason why you voted leave. Then the one you quote has been utterly misrepresented by the UK press. Vin
Like football stats can be chosen to suit either argument. You are missing the point stated in your own statement. Those rural areas with smaller populations might have smaller immigrant numbers but much higher in %. The effect of immigration in those smaller areas is much higher than a larger number (but smaller %) in a much larger population. Especially a larger area like London that has much more money spent on it than elsewhere. The whole problem can be highlightetd (again there are some misleading stats here) with the highest leave vote of Boston. The figures remain will use are that the population of Boston rose by 15% in 10 years. That is a bit misleading because it only counts those that live in Boston. The reality is that migrants working Boston are living not just in Boston but also in rural areas surrounding Boston (including trailers or caravans on farms) but still need to use the infrastructure and service of Boston. Same with places like Wisbech. The actual change in population in terms of using doctors, schools, roads, shops (we'll not talk about nightclubs and the problems related to that) and everything else is above 25% in 10 years. That is the problem. Your argument is saying "Boston only has 15,000 immigrants (remain stats) or 25,000+ (actual amount using Boston's services) which is less than remain voting boroughs of London. That is not why people voted out. Yes they did either by ticking leave or by deciding to go by the decision of whoever won by not voting. That is how votes work.
You obviously agree with the other one I did quote then........The fact the EU can over ride our own supreme court findings. You think that is right????? I agree sometimes courts make a hash of things. Its just that I don't think the European court should have cart blanch over ours.........No persuading will ever change my mind on that. Sorry mate.......
Country's governments? or their people? I agree that the rest of Europe's governments work to change things within the structure. That isn't the same as saying other countries. Still a ruling class making the decisions and when they have given referendums to their people they have lost a lot of them yet decided to ignore the result.
Um, no? Those rural areas have a far smaller %. The smaller the % of migrants and people with different ethnic backgrounds the higher the leave vote was the general correlation I was making. Whether it was rural or not wasn't actually important at all to my point. And no thats not how voting works, certainly not in a democracy.
We will have to agree to disagree. Rural areas have been hammered with no investment or infratructure to cope with what %wise has been a huge alteration of population. I'm sure you will find some stats to support your theory but the reality in the rural areas of the Midlands and East Anglia is that in a single decade there has been a huge change in population demographic. Whether you like it or not that has caused a lot of problems. Most from frustration, a small amount from xenophobia. Dismissing it because you don;t agree with it is not the way to go forward. You just risk all of the progress we have made by ignoring the valid (and invalid) concerns of other people. And yes that is how voting works. If someone choose not to vote they have chosen not to vote. voting works by counting up those that did vote. If you decided not to vote then you are acquiescing to the result whichever way it goes from those that did vote.
. Here are a handful of ECJ judgments: Equal pay for men and women. UK govt argued should be only for "identical work". ECJ said it should be for "work of equal value" Outlawed UK "rolling up" laws which allowed companies not to pay for holidays. Outlawed discrimination against women pregnant or on maternity leave. Compensation for flight hold ups. Prevented government collection of phone call data and internet browsing activity from you. Supported the UK govt in asserting that it could withold benefits from EU migrants here for under five years. Ruled against the EU that London-based banks *could* be clearing houses for Euros. Saved tens of thousands of jobs for the UK. Any on there of which you disapprove? And, as an aside, what's the solution for, say, a dispute that's gone past negotiated resolution between the UK and Poland about a trade-mark infringement by one against the other regarding goods being sold into Germany. Should it be the UK, Polish, German or EU court that passes judgment? Would you be happy if the Polish or German courts made the decision? I find your last sentence utterly depressing. There's nothing I'm unpersuadable about. If the facts point to my being wrong, I change my mind. You might be surprised but in the 1990s I was radically anti-EU. I changed my mind. Not incidentally, it happened when I stopped reading the Telegraph. Vin
I agree with your analysis of voting, but you are missing an important point. Unlike a General Election, where voters are faced with what might be a choice between several parties, none of whom they particularly agree or disagree with, this was a one-off referendum. The choice, which I believe we should never have been given, at least until the outcomes were made clearer, was between change and the status quo. Given the undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the EU, and given the complete campaigning failure from the Remain side, it was, in hindsight, a lot easier to get people to vote for change, than get off their arses and vote for the status quo, particularly as most people on both sides never believed that Leave had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. I voted Remain, I am still a Remainer, and I’m still not convinced that the government will risk losing the support of the DUP by imposing a hard border with the ROI. I still have a sneaking feeling that a way will be found to stay, at least in the Customs Union. And by the way, I live in a rural area, and immigration was never an issue in the referendum around rural Somerset. I do think though, that those who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods are getting a bit twitchy about the loss of EU subsidies if we do leave.
Well all I can say r.e. your last paragraph is the mood here is vastly different. Most of the farms here might be privately owned but they are run as part of vast co-operatives. Farmers don't employ people, the Co-ops do and they royally f***** a lot of people over including all the big processors (that may as well own those "privately owned" farms. Most of the subsidies are not going to small farmers. They are going to big groups that monopolise the industry. In this region "freedom of movement" was always about paying less and having a workforce that would not stand up for itself. No surprise that the big distribution companies all set up their behemoth distribution centres in this region. It is just not correct to look at stats of who lives where to say the change has been minimal when most of the prominent remain people who push these stats know full well that these market towns and cities are now overwhelmed by people that live in the vicinity. You can't just pick up on stats that give a population from a market town and ignore the vast amount that don;t live in that town but are reliant on the infrastructure of that town. That kind of statistical abuse is one of the key things that has caused the whole "populist" advance. People are sick of politicians (all sides) ignoring reality and choosing stats that deny what is really happening. Sorry if people really do want to believe that "them" are 'orrible and should be ignored because "us" is right and should continue unabated without worrying about the concerns of "them." That attitude will only collapse the progress we have already achieved.
Vin It is obvious to me you believe the EU is the bees knees. Just as you believe, I do not. Fair enough.........I don't wish to continue with the debate...mainly because It won't get us anywhere. Can you categorically say the our government of the day would not have come round to those things that you mention? No of course you cant.......... How nice of them to bring our banks into line with theirs!! None of the other EU members have a similar social system to ours so of course rules had to be made to protect us. For every wrong I'll see, you will see a right, thats how debate goes. In truth we had a referendum which decided for us to leave the EU. You disagree and want to try to turn that vote over come hell and high water. Some people will have changed their minds in both camps. I have been anti EU for quite a while so for me it was no problem. I would have accepted it if it went the other way though I wouldn't have cried foul or tried to get another referendum because I didn't like the result. I just accept things and get on with it. I really don't feel the need to argue with someone because they don't agree. If that makes you feel you have won the debate that's your prerogative but it still doesn't and probably wouldn't have changed my mind. My last word on the subject....for now.......
You realise that the area you brought up is litteraly town with the highest change in the uk? Picking the biggest outlier with a tiny population and then saying it's indicative of the reality of the rest of the UK and accusing me of statistical abuse is a bit rich. I think the main difference you are looking at places currently going through change while I am looking at places that have already been through change. On voting there are lots of reasons why people didn't vote. For example my bosses parents didn't vote as it would have cost them £1000 to do so despite them living here 40 years having come from italy. I bet that the a lot of people didn't vote because they simply didn't know what the right choice was. That doesnt mean they should be excluded from the democratic process. The vote is just a tool to gauge public opinion. If public opinion has changed then the poll is irrelevant. Saying that they are happy to go along with whatever outcome just because they didn't vote is basically tyrannical.
Beddy, it’s a bit unfair to declare that it won’t get you anywhere continuing the debate and you don’t want to continue it and then write another list of points. Come on, play fair.
. Strange. I've addressed pretty much every individual point you've made throughout this debate, giving answers, clarification and additional information. Your answer has been pretty much, it'll all be fine; we need to keep going regardless of what might be apparent now that wasn't apparent at the time of the vote; I just don't like the EU for reasons I can't articulate and I don't want to talk about it any more (aka you lost, suck it up). The entire EU debate encapsulated. Vin PS I don't believe anything of the sort. My answers throughout this forum are generally grey rather than black and white. Same in this case. The EU is a form of government, so hugely fallible but overall I see it as a major benefit to mine, my family and my country's success. That's based on facts not faith.
July 2017 - Liam Fox : a post Brexit trade deal will be the "easiest in history". Sept 2018 - Liam Fox (yes, the very same twit): please log in to view this image Vin
If that is how you see it then fine. From my point of view I don’t see the point in having a moan until there is something really to moan about. I might when the results come or the negotiations are known but until then I wont worry.
The town with the biggest change which had the biggest leave vote. Not choosing statistics there. Your statement was trying to imply that rural areas had less immigration. Your statement that the highest leave votes were in rural areas............that have less immigrants was not true at all. (leading on to 2nd paragraph.) Totally agree. What I was trying to point out. This is where the rural/immigrant stat is misused. You can point to a city having more immigrants but the key thing might be that while the number is higher a lot of that has gradually arrived. What we got did not gradually arrive. Rural areas got the lot in a decade. Vast change in a short time scale. THAT is the problem. Boston is a prime example (yes an extreme one because of it farming demographic.) You see this across the Midlands though. We aren't going to agree on the voting part. I accept your parent's problem but how many people were limited by that? For most people they chose not to vote. If they were that bothered they should have voted. They knew the date, they knew what was at stake. They either couldn't be bothered or assumed that their vote wouldn't be needed. They gambled, that's tough. You assume that the same didn't happen the other way? That some leave voters assumed they would lose so didn't bother either!
Comments like this and the one by Rees Mogg, when he said that the U.K. might not see any real economic benefits for up to fifty years, should make even the most staunch supporters of Brexit wonder if it was the right decision to vote leave.
Again you're using an outlier and saying it is indicative of the whole of rural areas. Far worse than what I was doing. my statement was correct. But to put it frankly I find the long term effects of immigration more important than the short term effects. Short term effects need to be mitigated but leaving the EU is a long term issue. That's why I chose statistics that demonstrate that fact rather than by percentage. but you are also wrong about that being representative of rural areas. here's a breakdown of immigration by percentage of population in 2016-17 (last year available) taken from the ONS. i chose the top 24 as that included Southampton. as you can see, Boston is an outlier, and not at all representative. so both in terms of long term, and recent immigration, you're talking bollocks. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ets/localareamigrationindicatorsunitedkingdom
