EU, impartial facts. Where to find

[brocklanders023]

Re:

So a party that failed to reach the heights it set itself and failed to get it's leader elected even though they went where they knew they had support and a the best chance of winning is more influential than the people who got elected and can actually influence things :?

By your strange logic I assume that if the Remain lot win Farage will finally crawl back under his stone having found out that most people don't actually believe what he does? If that's the case, and being on the fence atm, my mind could be made up! :xmas-big-grin:

 

[bm0p700f]

After the 23rd if leave win i will be watching what happens closely. If the u.k economy dips and the toties move the way i think they will on eu issues i will have to give serious consideration to moving the shop to denmark or germany. I sell alot into the eu and given the commsion are looking at reducing cross boarder postal costs i think my onoine business is better off there than here if leave wins. That is a sad thought as imlike living here.

 

[technodup]

Re: Re:

So a party that failed to reach the heights it set itself and failed to get it's leader elected even though they went where they knew they had support and a the best chance of winning is more influential than the people who got elected and can actually influence things :?

I'm really not sure why you're arguing here.

It's patently obvious to anyone with a TV that Farage has been banging the referendum/immigration/EU drum for a decade. Coincidentally (or not!), UKIP have seen massive gains in that same decade. From nowhere to second in many GE constituencies, winning the Euro elections, getting a Tory MP to cross the floor and taking votes off the Tories right left and centre. And again totally coincidentally Cameron agrees to have a referendum when previously he'd promised it and not delivered. The Tories and to a lesser extent Labour have had this debate internally for decades and got nowhere.

Make no mistake, we're having this vote largely because of Nigel Farage. It's pretty much the definition of influence. And he's done it from outside Westminster, which was my point.

 

[videojetman]

EU, impartial facts, where to find ?

Certainly not here.

 

[dyna-ti]

I only know one thing. Do the complete opposite to whatever the conservative party want to do.

 

[Mike Muz]

I only know one thing. Do the complete opposite to whatever the conservative party want to do.

Which part? Thee ins or outs? Are there any in outs shake it all abouts?

Farages scaremongering for years has started to , well, scare people. Good job Nigel! Coming from someone married to an immigrant, can anyone else see the irony? Someone who says he hardly heard someone speaking English on a train some time ago. I wonder what language his German wife speaks, when on the phone to her father in Germany

He may have had a big part in influencing the referendum, but there's good reasons why the other politicians on the leave sidde keep him at arms length.

Look at actual figures of people legally migrating to this country, and you'll see it's not ' opening our borders to 30 zillion people' that he suggests. Theoretically they could come, but they're not. That is his main scaremongering point. Which is totally flawed.

The sooner he crawls back under his stone, the better. He can have a nice angst ridden rant with griffin then.

 

[technodup]

Look at actual figures of people legally migrating to this country, and you'll see it's not ' opening our borders to 30 zillion people' that he suggests. Theoretically they could come, but they're not. That is his main scaremongering point. Which is totally flawed.

It's 400k that come each year (half EU, half non EU). As he points out 508m have the right to come if they fancy it. We should be thankful our weather's crap tbh.

400k is unsustainable, never mind any more. That's not scaremongering, it's simple fact that we don't have enough housing for a start. Or school places. Or hospital beds.

If the EU gets any worse (and parts of it are pretty bad), or any bigger (as is planned) it's inevitable more will come to the land of milk and honey. Except there won't be enough milk to go round, and honey will be something you remember from years gone by.

But it's not the middle aged, middle classes in their bought houses who will suffer, like I imagine many here are (myself included). It'll be the low paid, the low skilled, the renters and the young who will be in competition with the new entrants. Competition that drives wages down, rents up etc etc.

 

[bm0p700f]

What is unsustainable though is not taking in the numbers we do. Our population is aging. What the leave camp have not said is how by say 2050 if migration is reduced to the 10,000's how pensions e.t.c will be paid for. With a aging population either the concept of retirement will give or we need a bigger working age population. Since we are not having enough children there is only one way to bring the dependency ratio down.

no point in burying our collective head in the sand. whether migration is reduced or not big social changes are coming the thing is which change do we prefer. I would like the NHS and state pension to exist for me in 30 years time (I am 40 and expect to work till I am around 70).

By 2050 the NHS alone will be gobbling up 25% of England's GDP that is the effect of a aging population. Of course this is planning beyond the normal election cycle there are no votes in that.

this is why in the long run voting out will no change migration flows. There is an economic reality that cannot be avoided. Germany took in 1m refugees last year not because they are feeling generous but because there population is aging and falling! They saw an opportunity to reverse that trend and avoid a demographic time bomb. Merkel has balls to plan for the future.

 

[M-Power]

Re:

The ~ 1/3 of the U.K population that pays most of the taxes cant afford to have big families because they are killing themselves with the stress, juggling child care and working long hours trying to pay off a mortgage and all the other huge costs of living. It's easier for many of the rest to have plenty of time to procreate and for casual sxx when the state pays for it all.

There should be better financial incentives for the tax payers to have bigger families. Uncontrolled immigration is not the answer.

 

[bm0p700f]

Your're wrong though. Across the world birth rates drop as incomes rise. Even in Bangladesh average number of children is 2.2 to each woman and Bangladesh is not a rich country. so this has nothing to do with tax incentives to have more kids. Such incentives simply would not work and there is a lot of evidence to back this up.

the demographic timebomb as it is called is ignored or dismissed all to often by many politicians. M-power your response is typical and also will not solve the problem (I am not trying to offend you but when I raise this with a brexit person this is the response).

By the way I am in the 1/3 of people you talk about, have a mortgage one child and no tax incentive would tempt me and my wife to have any more. We have a strict one child policy in the Borg household. Come up with another policy.