Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
BobbyD said:
whilst immigration doesn't help the lack of housing there are 2 things at play:

1. you're assuming that no new houses are being built which wouldn't house the increase in migrants (i don't know the stats on this).

2. the real issue being discussed is that public and subsidised housing which is being reduced by the right to buy policy and the lack of replacement stock

help to buy was a policy that had good intentions but as you can see is not sustainable and should be abandoned
Click to expand...

Agree there needs to be more building on brownfield sites, Bobby.

And, yes, there has to be a stock of subsidised housing that is maintained for those needing it. There's an issue over when a resident has to vacate council owned property if their wealth exceeds qualifying thresholds. A good example of that was Bob Crow who was earning huge amounts but would not budge from his council house!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
Goldhawk-Road said:
There are 1.36 million people unemployed. It must be government's duty to do what it can to help them find work by education, incentives, retraining etc. Of course, there are some skills we need from overseas workers and that must be taken into account in any immigration policy. But the fact that the big corporates are concerned at their profit margins because they won't be able to get unlimited cheap labour after Brexit, tells me they have been undercutting the market which was bad news for the British workman who has a mortgage and a family to feed.
Click to expand...

The big corporates I’ve worked for are more ****ed by a weak pound than they can be by the wages of factory staff going up a pound or two.

1.36m is a drop in the ocean. Take out those who are beyond help and it’s a minuscule number. Take out those who are nowhere near where the jobs are and it’s smaller still.
 
West WindsR said:
The big corporates I’ve worked for are more ****ed by a weak pound than they can be by the wages of factory staff going up a pound or two.

1.36m is a drop in the ocean. Take out those who are beyond help and it’s a minuscule number. Take out those who are nowhere near where the jobs are and it’s smaller still.
Click to expand...

The fall in the pound is a temporary effect of the referendum vote. It's not Brexit but the transition to Brexit that's causing it. Investors don't like uncertainty. It will resolve itself.

The definition of "unemployed" is people actively seeking work, so the 1.36m won't include those beyond help, sick etc Job location is an issue but the unemployment figures are going down annually, because people are being entrepreneurial, opening new businesses etc, and a lot of work can now be done at home using the internet. All of which is encouraging. We'll see how low the figures go.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
There are 1.36 million people unemployed. It must be government's duty to do what it can to help them find work by education, incentives, retraining etc. Of course, there are some skills we need from overseas workers and that must be taken into account in any immigration policy. But the fact that the big corporates are concerned at their profit margins because they won't be able to get unlimited cheap labour after Brexit, tells me they have been undercutting the market which was bad news for the British workman who has a mortgage and a family to feed.
Click to expand...

The EU recently passed a law to stop companies undercutting local employees with imported labour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44293265

Member states have two years to implement this, so it won't apply here. <doh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: DT’s Socks
Goldhawk-Road said:
So are you saying that the huge increases in immigration over the last 20 years has had no effect on the lack of housing in the UK, DT?
Click to expand...

No or I would of said that
There is a housing shortage
Look at the building taking place in my home county of East Sussex

Plenty of houses in truth in fact I will not believe there is a shortage in the U.K. it’s a complete lie. In areas there are massive shortages but only in pockets and it’s these figures people based arguments on

The building of new properties is to keep the U.K. economy going because most have their entire worth inside their house

No one wants council houses near their home if they own it

That is embedded into our culture from the US and will never change. It’s the only real thing left that supports the economy.

Houses are built to make profit for all concerned. That comes first and there isn’t a second thought for supporting infrastructure apart from supermarkets fighting for position to build a profit making store.

I challenge anyone to look at their own high street Map references are now corporate names .... ie head to Tesco turn right at Sainsbury’s and follow the road to Argos etc etc. The pubs are being sold off to make express type shops and we now shop at petrol garages.

Housing to immigration is poppy cock

We have loads of space in the U.K. plenty in fact. Farms are purchased by the rich who don’t farm as farming is on the decline massively and it’s needs massive help

Forgot the farm shops etc their produce is purchased on the whole. It’s just a revenue stream. Yes there are places that do grow on site of course but they are few and fair between and rely on other revenues to support their businesses

People move to where business is and that’s not exclusive to the U.K.

What people are saying imo is within these hot spots there are not enough houses

London is undergoing social cleaning as the real estate is gold and the costs are spiralling out of control

I will stop at doing a comparison to France
No point there isn’t one

I will say again however I couldn’t afford to buy one of my families old cottages attached to our old farm in East Sussex as they are fetching £750k a pop just to be knocked down so city money can play grand designs

Councils can buy and build homes instead of putting money into their portfolio investments but they won’t. They want revenue not sponging problem families on benefits

With the benefits cuts we have seen unemployment drop it’s working to force lazy English into work . The immigrants are already working and doing fine they are the shinning example to me as generally they have the ethic we lost generations ago

Yes there are hot spots that are seriously bad but we are all immigrants of some sort
We just took our eye of the ball and have the equal right to find our own space

English home owners only care about their own castle ... there is little chance they will pull together because of the fear they may lose something
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
Goldhawk-Road said:
There are 1.36 million people unemployed. It must be government's duty to do what it can to help them find work by education, incentives, retraining etc. Of course, there are some skills we need from overseas workers and that must be taken into account in any immigration policy. But the fact that the big corporates are concerned at their profit margins because they won't be able to get unlimited cheap labour after Brexit, tells me they have been undercutting the market which was bad news for the British workman who has a mortgage and a family to feed.
Click to expand...

We need all the skills the outside world gives us. You are 100% right the markets rely on free movement of labour.

They are more skilled and have a work ethic our generations have never known

Good luck with the training after Brexit

Families feeding themselves from where?
We have never had it so cheap ever in our history and we are used to it

After Brexit or following a No Deal there will be massive civil unrest at the first shortage of anything. If the supply is kept open then no problems people will not care and I fully expect Brexiteers to crow immediately with told you so etc

It’s on a knife edge imo the damm lot

Hence why myself the hypocrite has taken measures. You have to be total **** to know other ****s really are
 
Willhoops said:
Well we don't like all those rules that the EU make anyway... it's the will of the people, everyone knew what they were voting for <whistle>
Click to expand...
I was voting in a once in a generation referendum. The government position as stated in the famous information leaflet was “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
Pretty straightforward statement!
The question we were asked was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The leaflet told us in no uncertain terms the consequences of leaving.

It is, therefore, highly likely that people knew what they were voting for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol, Staines R's, ELLERS and 1 other person
bc7 said:
I was voting in a once in a generation referendum. The government position as stated in the famous information leaflet was “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
Pretty straightforward statement!
The question we were asked was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The leaflet told us in no uncertain terms the consequences of leaving.

It is, therefore, highly likely that people knew what they were voting for.
Click to expand...

How many voted for a no-deal Brexit, would you say?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willhoops
bc7 said:
I was voting in a once in a generation referendum. The government position as stated in the famous information leaflet was “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”
Pretty straightforward statement!
The question we were asked was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The leaflet told us in no uncertain terms the consequences of leaving.

It is, therefore, highly likely that people knew what they were voting for.
Click to expand...
What did the leaflet say were the consequences of leaving?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willhoops and DT’s Socks
bc7 said:
The leaflet told us all the consequences
Click to expand...

I'd never seen this before either.

Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world. Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.

But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU. No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.

The other lot said that this was Project Fear and that we should take no notice, leaving would be a breeze.

Seems to me like the leaflet was right
 
Stroller said:
How many voted for a no-deal Brexit, would you say?
Click to expand...

Strolls, it was patently obvious to all but the mentally impaired, that while a deal with the EU was desirable and probably likely, it could not be relied upon as a guarantee because the UK had no control over another contracting party ie the EU. WTO was the backstop, and that was made clear during the referendum campaign. All the other arrangements talked about, like Norway and Switzerland and Canada, were all subject to EU agreement. Voters knew that. And they knew the UK could not unilaterally deliver it.
 
Stroller said:
I'd never seen this before either.

Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world. Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.

But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU. No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.

The other lot said that this was Project Fear and that we should take no notice, leaving would be a breeze.

Seems to me like the leaflet
Click to expand...
Goldhawk-Road said:
Strolls, it was patently obvious to all but the mentally impaired, that while a deal with the EU was desirable and probably likely, it could not be relied upon as a guarantee because the UK had no control over another contracting party ie the EU. WTO was the backstop, and that was made clear during the referendum campaign. All the other arrangements talked about, like Norway and Switzerland and Canada, were all subject to EU agreement. Voters knew that. And they knew the UK could not unilaterally deliver it.
Click to expand...
Voters knew very little mate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back