Brexit Referendum Superthread

djpbarry

stefanovich wrote: »

Most of the people in the EU are the same race as us.

No, they’re not, because the concept of “race” has absolutely no rational basis.

djpbarry

molloyjh wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by "new". Relative to Christianity you may have a point. But Muslims have been immigrating into the UK since the 18th century. And there were already Muslims in the UK by then due to the British Empire.

Muslims were also present in large numbers in continental Europe hundreds of years before that. Southern Spain was a Moorish stronghold and most of South-Eastern Europe formed part of the Ottoman Empire.

Rightwing

djpbarry wrote: »

Are we? What specific threat do I pose? I’ve already stolen a job and one of the native women – what have I forgotten?

A small number of immigrants are no threat. It's when vast numbers arrive, problems will be experienced, not least infrastructure won't be able to cope.
---
I've concluded most people in this country do not understand the word racism, hence the main reason I simply refuse to engage in such conversation.
---
Whilst Brexit will certainly damage the UK economy, I can't see the EU escape unscathed. The Italian banks are very weak, they are ripe for profits. Banning short selling of the weakest won't solve it, it only leads to increased enthusiasm. But they are not of systemic importance, however, a victory here can expose DB. That's when the EU will have a problem.

I'm not anti-Islam, in fact I'm very interested in Islamic civilisation, but I do understand the amazement at the fact that those who have most reason to obhect to orthodox Islamic teaching (i.e. liberal democrats, non-heterosexuals, educated women, etc.) are also those who shout loudest when anyone expresses concern about immigration from Islamic societies.

I'm not in favour of discrimination that is based on race, or country of origin. After all, my own brother-in-law is a Kuwaiti man who has fully 'integrated' and has no time for orthodox Islamic teaching on personal freedoms and gender.

Whilst we must never discriminate based on ethnicity and nationality, I'm not sure religion gets a totally free pass here. If twenty people are members of a ridiculous club which advocates less freedoms for women, and condemnation of homosexuals, I'm not sure we should be tolerating that bigotry. If millions of people subscribe to that club, we call it "culture". I don't see what's cultured about it, myself.

I'm sure we all know plenty of nominal Muslims, whose values are perfectly compatible with our values, despite our many differences. There are countless millions of Muslims who are not misogynistic, and who do not subscribe to the orthodox 'club'.

But I am uncomfortable in covering Islam in a veil (no pun intended) of "culture" and putting adherents beyond question.

I'm not sure how you'd go about applying a filter, but I do believe there are genuine concerns with changing the composition of society, to include any substantial number of people who hold orthodox (not extreme, not ISIS) beliefs in a social order that our forefathers, in the west, have fought hard to overcome.

I'm not limiting this to Muslims. If thousands of extreme, evangelical Christians want to come here, for example from Africa, I'd want us to have a serious, nuanced conversation about that too.

There has to be nuance. It cannot be as simple as immigrants = bad/ immigrants = good. The real world doesn't operate in accordance with such neat categories.

Bit cynical

djpbarry wrote: »

How? We’ve been told throughout the campaign that the UK will seek to secure a free trade deal with the EU post-Brexit, because about 50% of the UK’s exports go to EU countries. Ergo, an economic crisis in the EU is still going to severly affect the UK.

Sure but nevertheless it is still better to be outside when another EU-crisis hits.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

A small number of immigrants are no threat. It's when vast numbers arrive, problems will be experienced, not least infrastructure won't be able to cope.

The UK is at 12.5% foreign born, what exactly is this 'vast number' that you are so worried about?

15% ?
20% ?
25% ?
100% ?

Rightwing

Billy86 wrote: »

The UK is at 12.5% foreign born, what exactly is this 'vast number' that you are so worried about?

15% ?
20% ?
25% ?
100% ?

I'm not worried. I wanted Brexit for a few reasons:

Main reason, volatilty has spiked in the markets, and it's easy to make large profits when positioned correctly.
I'm anti EU, this is another empire in the making.
I'd prefer immigrants to stay at home, and would prefer if Western world would help them so that they don't have to travel, rather than try and exploit them by having them working for a few quid. But then again, the Irish do love to exploit the au pairs etc.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not worried. I wanted Brexit for a few reasons:

Main reason, volatilty has spiked in the markets, and it's easy to make large profits when positioned correctly.
I'm anti EU, this is another empire in the making.
I'd prefer immigrants to stay at home, and would prefer if Western world would help them so that they don't have to travel, rather than try and exploit them by having them working for a few quid. But then again, the Irish do love to exploit the au pairs etc.

That's not an answer to my question.

What is the 'vast number' of immigrants that has to be hit for a country to be unable to cope, though?

Is it 15%? Or 20%? 25%? 50%? 100%? A different percent?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

That's not an answer to my question.

What is the 'vast number' of immigrants that has to be hit for a country to be unable to cope, though?

Is it 15%? Or 20%? 25%? 50%? 100%? A different percent?

What do you think yourself, out of interest?

Surely no sensible adult thinks there's a universal figure; it depends on the local store of resources, employment statistics and future economic growth?

Rightwing

Billy86 wrote: »

That's not an answer to my question.

What is the 'vast number' of immigrants that has to be hit for a country to be unable to cope, though?

Is it 15%? Or 20%? 25%? 50%? 100%? A different percent?

It's a dumb question.

Some countries can cope better than others i.e Germany. I don't know how many they can take, but I'd suspect they are over estimating it.

Billy86

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you think yourself, out of interest?

Surely no sensible adult thinks there's a universal figure; it depends on the local store of resources, employment statistics and future economic growth?

That's the thing, I'm not the one who said "A small number of immigrants are no threat. It's when vast numbers arrive, problems will be experienced, not least infrastructure won't be able to cope."

Given that the UK is at around 12.5%, I would be highly interested to know what this 'vast' number is, even vaguely. That's the thing with some of the anti-immigration crowd, they'll happily throw out vague comments like that without any specification as to what exactly they mean by 'vast numbers' - it could be 1-in-10, 1-in-50, 1-in-100 or 1-in-1,000 and there is rarely any effort made to be specific.

By comparison, Canada and Australia (both of which have been referred to by some anti immigrant types as a model to work off of) have far, far higher numbers than the UK - almost double for the former, and more than double for the latter. And these migrants are on average, less skilled than those entering the UK. But having lived in both I don't see them collapsing in on themselves. One particular example being Toronto which has a population greater than the Republic of Ireland at 5.5mn in the metro area, and over 50% of people were not even born in Canada.

CMOTDibbler

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not worried. I wanted Brexit for a few reasons:

Main reason, volatilty has spiked in the markets, and it's easy to make large profits when positioned correctly.
I'm anti EU, this is another empire in the making.
I'd prefer immigrants to stay at home, and would prefer if Western world would help them so that they don't have to travel, rather than try and exploit them by having them working for a few quid. But then again, the Irish do love to exploit the au pairs etc.

So personal gain, fear of a large group of nations as a bulwark against globalisation and the west helping immigrants to stay at home by perhaps not starting wars to 'democratise' their political systems?

Makes sense.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

It's a dumb question.

Some countries can cope better than others i.e Germany. I don't know how many they can take, but I'd suspect they are over estimating it.

'Dumb question' brought about by a dumb statement that was too vague to ever mean anything, hence me looking for a little bit of detail or clarity.

Would you consider over 50% of a large city to be a 'vast number'?

How about 6.8mn out of 35mn (approx 20%)?

What about 6.7mn out of 23mn (approx 30%)?

All three are considerably higher than Germany's 9.1mn out of 81mn (approx 11%) whether you believe that to be inflated or not.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the thing, I'm not the one who said "A small number of immigrants are no threat. It's when vast numbers arrive, problems will be experienced, not least infrastructure won't be able to cope."

Given that the UK is at around 12.5%, I would be highly interested to know what this 'vast' number is, even vaguely. That's the thing with some of the anti-immigration crowd, they'll happily throw out vague comments like that without any specification as to what exactly they mean by 'vast numbers' - it could be 1-in-10, 1-in-50, 1-in-100 or 1-in-1,000 and there is rarely any effort made to be specific.

By comparison, Canada and Australia (both of which have been referred to by some anti immigrant types as a model to work off of) have far, far higher numbers than the UK - almost double for the former, and more than double for the latter. And these migrants are on average, less skilled than those entering the UK. But having lived in both I don't see them collapsing in on themselves. One particular example being Toronto which has a population greater than the Republic of Ireland at 5.5mn in the metro area, and over 50% of people were not even born in Canada.

Well, I'm in favour of curbing immigration at some point, but I freely admit I don't know where that point is. I'd have to take a day off work and download a thick wad of XL spreadsheets to figure it out.

Surely the overwhelming majority of people agree that immigration needs some upper limit. Yet none of us are likely to have a precise figure in mind.

I guess for most of us, the answer is 'whenever it starts to place a strain on resources'.

The difficulty here is that we often only start to notice a strain on resources when it affects us personally. Unskilled immigrants won't replace me in my job. I don't need welfare transfers. In fact, it probably suits you & I to purchase our middle-class wares from firms who hire low-paid workers.

But if you're a poor person, competing against an unskilled immigrant, or a welfare recipient competing for cash transfers, you won't feel so welcoming towards 'the competition'.

But the bottom line is that there is no universally acceptable line. It depends on the local jurisdiction, and even within that, people will choose a line that corresponds with their economic status.

And even then, they'll unlikely be able to give an accurate figure. Because we just can't readily access that kind of data.

smjm

Billy86 wrote: »

[...]
By comparison, Canada and Australia (both of which have been referred to by some anti immigrant types as a model to work off of) have far, far higher numbers than the UK - almost double for the former, and more than double for the latter. And these migrants are on average, less skilled than those entering the UK. But having lived in both I don't see them collapsing in on themselves. One particular example being Toronto which has a population greater than the Republic of Ireland at 5.5mn in the metro area, and over 50% of people were not even born in Canada.

Without wanting to get into the general immigration discussion, comparisons between vast, newish, sparsely populated countries, such as Australia and Canada, and small, old, heavily populated countries, such as the UK - and especially England - are fairly pointless. The numbers entering Canada and Australia are what those countries want them to be. They could reduce them to virtually zero if they wanted to, because they have control of their immigration. The UK, or at least many of those on the Leave side, want the same level of control. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Billy86

smjm wrote: »

Without wanting to get into the general immigration discussion, comparisons between vast, newish, sparsely populated countries, such as Australia and Canada, and small, old, heavily populated countries, such as the UK - and especially England - are fairly pointless.

That would be conveniently ignoring how much of Canada and Australia is barely hospitable. And the huge finances and efforts that would need to be put into establishing new towns etc were you to house immigrants there, and not among the general population - which is what happens. Hence why you wind up with cities like Toronto, which has over 50% foreign born inhabitants, as I mentioned.

The numbers entering Canada and Australia are what those countries want them to be.

This would make sense if the UK's migrant population were less skilled than Canada or Australia, but they are not. The reverse is true, and the UK have the highest skilled migrant population of the three, it will be interesting to see how that changes post-EU.

They could reduce them to virtually zero if they wanted to, because they have control of their immigration. The UK, or at least many of those on the Leave side, want the same level of control. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yes, but the interesting thing is how many Brexiters wanted to do this to vastly reduce immigration, yet these two countries that have been bandied around as example have far higher levels of immigration and with less skilled workers coming in. I think some of the leave voters are in for a harsh reality on that front as they appear to be under the illusion that Australia in particular has very low levels of immigration and only to the highest skilled engineers, doctors, etc... all it takes in 30 seconds in Haymarket or Kingsford to disprove that entirely, and the statistics agree too.

Sam Russell

smjm wrote: »

Without wanting to get into the general immigration discussion, comparisons between vast, newish, sparsely populated countries, such as Australia and Canada, and small, old, heavily populated countries, such as the UK - and especially England - are fairly pointless. The numbers entering Canada and Australia are what those countries want them to be. They could reduce them to virtually zero if they wanted to, because they have control of their immigration. The UK, or at least many of those on the Leave side, want the same level of control. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

More than 50% of immigrants in the UK come from outside the EU. Of those that come from the EU, 50% arrive with a job, so with absolute control, only 25% of immigrants would be stopped coming from the EU, but over 50% of the total immigrants could be stopped without offending the EU free entry.

Also, there are more people living in the UK born on the India sub-continent that the total number born in EU countries which includes the Irish who have a special position because of the CTA.

The immigration issue is based on lies and some level of racism, xenophobia, jingoism, and a few less pleasant -isms.

But that is what happens with referendums - they get sidetracked and the 'big issue' is quite often nothing to do with the question being asked.

May God help them (if she wins the vote).




.

smjm

Sam Russell wrote: »

More than 50% of immigrants in the UK come from outside the EU. Of those that come from the EU, 50% arrive with a job, so with absolute control, only 25% of immigrants would be stopped coming from the EU, but over 50% of the total immigrants could be stopped without offending the EU free entry.

Also, there are more people living in the UK born on the India sub-continent that the total number born in EU countries which includes the Irish who have a special position because of the CTA.

The immigration issue is based on lies and some level of racism, xenophobia, jingoism, and a few less pleasant -isms.

But that is what happens with referendums - they get sidetracked and the 'big issue' is quite often nothing to do with the question being asked.

May God help them (if she wins the vote).




.

As I said above, I don't want to get into a general immigration discussion, so your post is wasted on me. I was simply pointing out that:

a) there's no point comparing the UK with Canada and Australia in terms of immigration specifics;

b) wanting to control immigration, in general, is not racist.

Sam Russell

smjm wrote: »

As I said above, I don't want to get into a general immigration discussion, so your post is wasted on me. I was simply pointing out that:

a) there's no point comparing the UK with Canada and Australia in terms of immigration specifics;

b) wanting to control immigration, in general, is not racist.

I appreciate that, but the Leavists were arguing that 'getting control of our borders' would give them control of immigration. That is not so - at any level.

The problem they have now is that the whole UK economy will now tank.

smjm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I appreciate that, but the Leavists were arguing that 'getting control of our borders' would give them control of immigration. That is not so - at any level.

Depends on what system is implemented, which we don't and can't know yet. But I take your point.

Sam Russel wrote:

The problem they have now is that the whole UK economy will now tank.

In the short term, no doubt, as was always going to be the case. Long term, the UK will be fine, which will be good for them and for us.

Polo_Mint

smjm wrote: »

Depends on what system is implemented, which we don't and can't know yet. But I take your point.

In the short term, no doubt, as was always going to be the case. Long term, the UK will be fine, which will be good for them and for us.

In What way do you think they will be fine?

and whats your minimum timeline for long term?

smjm

Polo_Mint wrote: »

In What way do you think they will be fine?

In the way that the world will not end and that the UK, the EU and the rest of the world - after thanking the good Lord for the world not ending - will continue eating, drinking, watching tv and trading with each other.

Polo_Mint wrote:

and whats your minimum timeline for long term?

As soon as the markets notice that the world has not ended and people are still eating, drinking, watching tv and trading with each other, just as they always did!

Billy86

smjm wrote: »

In the way that the world will not end and that the UK, the EU and the rest of the world - after thanking the good Lord for the world not ending - will continue eating, drinking, watching tv and trading with each other.
As soon as the markets notice that the world has not ended and people are still eating, drinking, watching tv and trading with each other, just as they always did!

So it will be ok when it is ok because it will be ok on the basis of someone saying it will be ok, and that will happen whenever things turn out ok.

Well that's reassuring!

Sam Russell

smjm wrote: »

In the way that the world will not end and that the UK, the EU and the rest of the world - after thanking the good Lord for the world not ending - will continue eating, drinking, watching tv and trading with each other.

Japan had a 'lost decade' because of a banking crisis. The UK will be lucky if it is only a decade.

In a recession, people stop spending and factories stop making if they cannot sell the produce. A recession has been well flagged for them.

Enzokk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Japan had a 'lost decade' because of a banking crisis. The UK will be lucky if it is only a decade.

In a recession, people stop spending and factories stop making if they cannot sell the produce. A recession has been well flagged for them.

Luckily the UK have moved from a manufacturing to services economy. Unluckily the little production they do have is not in the South East/London so the people who will suffer will be the ones that voted for this exit in the majority. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

stefanovich

Sam Russell wrote: »

Japan had a 'lost decade' because of a banking crisis. The UK will be lucky if it is only a decade.

In a recession, people stop spending and factories stop making if they cannot sell the produce. A recession has been well flagged for them.

This is your expert opinion? What qualifications do you have? Even the experts are not in agreement. Right now there is uncertainty. We need to wait until there is a proper government in place.

Sam Russell wrote: »

More than 50% of immigrants in the UK come from outside the EU. Of those that come from the EU, 50% arrive with a job, so with absolute control, only 25% of immigrants would be stopped coming from the EU, but over 50% of the total immigrants could be stopped without offending the EU free entry.

Also, there are more people living in the UK born on the India sub-continent that the total number born in EU countries which includes the Irish who have a special position because of the CTA.

The immigration issue is based on lies and some level of racism, xenophobia, jingoism, and a few less pleasant -isms.

But that is what happens with referendums - they get sidetracked and the 'big issue' is quite often nothing to do with the question being asked.

May God help them (if she wins the vote).

.

So the referendum result gives more control over the borders. Bad immigration policy from outside the EU is another issue to resolve. It doesn't take away from the fact the having control over immigration from the EU also improves things.

Zubeneschamali

stefanovich wrote: »

We need to wait until there is a proper government in place.

It does not make sense for business people to sit on their hands for months while big money moves are happening.

I think the UK will probably be in recession by the time it has a new government.

Bob24

I think anyone making definite medium to long term predictions about the UK economy is just projecting their own political bias (for or against the EU) on that country. What is clear is that there is a lot of uncertainty, but whether it is for the worse or the better in the long term will depend on too many unknown factors and decisions from future British governments.

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

I think anyone making definite medium to long term predictions about the UK economy is just projecting their own political bias (for or against the EU) on that country. What is clear is that there is a lot of uncertainty, but whether it is for the worse or the better in the long term will depend on too many unknown factors and decisions from future British governments.

Absolutely true. The timespan is far too short to make accurate predictions based on current trends. However the signs aren't good and the UK economy is heavily dependant on imports which the weak pound will make more expensive and trigger inflation. If the UK was running a trade surplus, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but it isn't.

It's crazy really when you think about it that we're saying effectively 'until they have a government' when they actually do have one. :eek:

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

I think anyone making definite medium to long term predictions about the UK economy is just projecting their own political bias (for or against the EU) on that country.

That's the story the Brexit campaign sold to voters, that people were fed up listening to so-called experts with their so-called knowledge. I think the electorate are about to learn that the experts were not wrong, and were actually speaking rather conservatively.