EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.

[Carolina Red]

Well yes but they are not really comparable in case you haven't noticed yet. There is not just one "trade agreement" and they are all equal. If your argument is that without a "major trade agreement" the UK will be insignificant in the short term you might want to check on your competence debating this issue (and start thinking of whether or not California could survive without the US). Several bilateral trade agreements might be just as effective as being part of a "major trade agreement", it might be even better.

That's not to say that the UK will be better off leaving the EU as I find it rather obvious that it's vice versa.

Besides, and that's not exclusively directed at you: Independence and trade agreements do not conflict each other in any way.

My posting of the map is directed towards this post...

But that logic is defied by every successful independent country on the planet.

I'm trying to understand what and who he means by "successful independent country" in reference to Britain voluntarily leaving the largest economic system in the world.

Also, as the French minister alluded to, if Britain wants trade with Europe, it will have to contribute to the European budget like Norway or Switzerland. So, they'll be getting (most likely) subprime trade deals with the added expense of still having to pay into the EU. Is there any way that can be economically better than the current situation?

 

[Bury Red]

I was simply trying to highlight a popular phrase that politicians use when talking about migration, be it inside or outside the EU. It's an easy answer to an otherwise complex question. Where do you build all these new homes? We already have many parts of the country who suffer from severe flooding, do we continue to encroach into our countryside, build on every little piece of land we can find? Last time I checked successive governments have continued to fail to meet their targets for new build homes, so how is that going to improve in the future?
I'm not saying people who move here don't contribute because a majority of them do. The 'idle minority' is another argument entirely.

But the problem is that you shouldn't say you're going to reduce the rate of migration and then fail to do so but then come back with 'well it's difficult to do' as an excuse. The government know that they can't control the numbers arriving from within the EU but they do have greater control in those arriving from outside, so why has that number continued to increase?

The flooding in the UK has a number of causes starting from uphill farmers cutting down hedgerows and trees to maintain larger fields which attract greater EU subsidies and then rather than cropping them allowing sheep or cattle to graze them, the denuding of the vegetation reduces the earth's natural ability to hold up initial rainfall and prevent/delay it hitting the rivers whilst the sheep and cattle further compact the topsoil making land runoff even more rapid. We have too many hard standing areas where drains rather than running into soakaways or storage ponds/reservoirs simply discharge into rivers and streams. Our rivers have been mismanaged through decades of Environment Agency underfunding leading to lack of dredging to improve flow capacity at river mouths and the catastrophic policy of straightening out meanders upstream to increase flow which only leads to greater pressure downstream. The policies of building on floodplain land as it was clean, cheap and "who wouldn't want to live alongside a river" was also fundamentally flawed. It does not mean the country is full by any means though, we just need to be more creative in terms of cleaning up and reusing brownfield sites and ensuring that where we do build we use modern Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) rather than relying on the old and cheap methods of getting rainfall out of our area as quickly as possible and bugger the consequences downstream.

Successive governments have failed to meet house building targets because we let them get away with it, similarly our roads are crumbling and our rail infrastructure is on the verge of breakdown. It doesn't mean they don't raise the revenue to do the work every single year, just that we have allowed them to persistently delay and cancel projects and even been complicit with them by buying into environmental conspiracy theories and protesting new works with zero understanding of the environmental mitigation measures responsible Civil Engineering contractors and house builders put into every project. Similarly successive governments fail to meet their migration targets although as I've said in my earlier post, they probably know we actually need the migrants but as with the environmental smokescreen in my industry where Engineers are painted as despoilers of nature and the cause of traffic jams they love to use the immigration smokescreen to cover over other problems and give the general populous a convenient scapegoat.

People love to talk about successful independent countries like Singapore but miss the point that 1/3 of their population are immigrants, mostly unskilled foreign labour working in the construction industry that has put the country where it is along with a sizeable number of "foreign talents" recruited to fill shortfalls in their industries. It takes planning and management from the very top to manage a successful country, our problem starts when we elect clowns that couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and then we fail to follow up on their broken promises and push them to carry out the works we pay our taxes for.

 

[Javi]

My posting of the map is directed towards this post...

I'm trying to understand what and who he means by "successful independent country" in reference to Britain voluntarily leaving the largest economic system in the world.

Also, as the French minister alluded to, if Britain wants trade with Europe, it will have to contribute to the European budget like Norway or Switzerland. So, they'll be getting (most likely) subprime trade deals with the added expense of still having to pay into the EU. Is there any way that can be economically better than the current situation?

As I said in the last sentence: Independance and trade agreements do not conflict with each other. No country of economic strength has zero trade agreements, in fact I'd be surprised if there is a country in the world without one single trade agreements (except maybe North Korea and the like). I'm also not sure that the UK will be without a trade agreement after they lose, as there might be older contracts coming back into effect. But anyway from an economic perspective I think it's rather obvious that the UK will be better off staying in the EU for the foreseeable future, so I agree with your original point I just didn't think you were making a substantiated case for it.

As for Switzerland and Norway I dont think that they have subprime deals but more or less equal deals as EU members but are missing a seat on the table negotiating about EU laws whilst having to agree on most of it anyway. On the other side they have more freedom to make deals with other countries albeit in a weaker position than as a member of the EU. That's not better or worse per se, as it depends on what you make of it.

The UK could also do with the Swiss/Norway model but they would likely have to accept free movement, so if you're on the Leave side because of immigration then that's not really an option. What's left is a minor trade agreement that's gonna hurt the economy even more on top of the short term damage that is as things stand inevitable due to not already having the deals ratified.

 

[Chorley1974]

Do people realise that if the Uk wants to export products, these products have to comply with the laws of whichever country they are exporting to, so if the EU have rules to say what the packaging says for example, the UK will still have to apply these laws in order for them to sell them - the only difference will be is that the UK will have no say in what these laws will be if they leave

This is perhaps the most lame thing I have read in this thread, pathetic

 

[Rednotdead]

My posting of the map is directed towards this post...

I'm trying to understand what and who he means by "successful independent country" in reference to Britain voluntarily leaving the largest economic system in the world.

Also, as the French minister alluded to, if Britain wants trade with Europe, it will have to contribute to the European budget like Norway or Switzerland. So, they'll be getting (most likely) subprime trade deals with the added expense of still having to pay into the EU. Is there any way that can be economically better than the current situation?

Completely disregarding the fact that we have a trading deficit with the EU. For the first 3 months of this year it was just on £24bn. So who would be the loser if we had no trade agreement with the EU?

We even had that idiot Obama puffing out his chest and declaring that we'd be at the back of the queue for a trade agreement with the US.

Firstly, he won't be in power if that question arises. Secondly, we've never had any trade agreement with the US and it hasn't done us any harm.

 

[Bury Red]

This is perhaps the most lame thing I have read in this thread, pathetic

Why?

It's a fact that we have standardized all our production techniques to even the playing field in terms of European trade and that anybody else seeking to trade into the EU will need to comply with CE requirements and undergo auditing before their products will be acceptable for sale in Europe. It protects our industries, it ensures we have a minimum quality standard and it eases trade between EU partners so a company here doesn't need to know the full legal and technical requirements of every single country they wish to sell into.

As an EU member we not only have seats on all the CEN and ISO normalization committees but we actually have more seats than most and chair a great many of those committees. Leave the EU and we will have to give up our seats and lose any say we presently have over the rules that will affect our products, industry practices etc in the future. I don't see how that's pathetic or lame and whilst I could certainly do with a few of the days I spend in boring CEN committee meetings every year back, I'd still rather be setting the rules than having to blindly follow them to do business.

 

[Cheesy]

This is perhaps the most lame thing I have read in this thread, pathetic

In what sense?

 

[Javi]

Completely disregarding the fact that we have a trading deficit with the EU. For the first 3 months of this year it was just on £24bn. So who would be the loser if we had no trade agreement with the EU?

We even had that idiot Obama puffing out his chest and declaring that we'd be at the back of the queue for a trade agreement with the US.

Firstly, he won't be in power if that question arises. Secondly, we've never had any trade agreement with the US and it hasn't done us any harm.

You're better off just reading this thread believe me.

 

[Cheesy]

Completely disregarding the fact that we have a trading deficit with the EU. For the first 3 months of this year it was just on £24bn. So who would be the loser if we had no trade agreement with the EU?

We even had that idiot Obama puffing out his chest and declaring that we'd be at the back of the queue for a trade agreement with the US.

Firstly, he won't be in power if that question arises. Secondly, we've never had any trade agreement with the US and it hasn't done us any harm.

Clinton will probably be in power though, and I doubt she'll differentiate much from Obama on the issue.

 

[Chorley1974]

In what sense?

In that the UK has to comply with the product standards for the EU that is already complies to.

 

[Bury Red]

In that the UK has to comply with the product standards for the EU that is already complies to.

But we lose the right to set those standards in the future if we leave. The Civil Engineering design regulations for Europe begun publication in 2000 but the fine details of the more detailed areas are still in development and codes like that are constantly in need of update and amendment as industry practice changes. Giving up our right to sit on those committees would hit my industry very hard.

 

[Chorley1974]

But we lose the right to set those standards in the future if we leave. The Civil Engineering design regulations for Europe begun publication in 2000 but the fine details of the more detailed areas are still in development and codes like that are constantly in need of update and amendment as industry practice changes. Giving up our right to sit on those committees would hit my industry very hard.

surely skills are more important than committees?

 

[Bury Red]

surely skills are more important than committees?

Engineering training gives you the skills, design guidelines, rules and regulations are necessary to ensure public safety and that we don't abuse our skills. If we all develop our own rules it becomes utter chaos and you end up needing to know how to design to umpteen different standards if your company is multinational, industry harmonization through the CEN and ISO committees is the only sensible way forward. Believe me as someone who has through my career had to design to BS & HA (UK and UK roads), FN (French), DIN (Germany), AASHTO & FHWA (US & US roads), Norgeospec (Norway), CUR (Netherlands), HKGeo (HK) and NHAI (India) anything to standardize my design departments and allow me to share resources is more than welcome. I now work for a company manufacturing materials within the industry with plants in the UK, US, Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Saudi and China and having to only deal with CE and ASTM requirements globally rather than the dozen or so precursors is a huge time and cost saving.

 

[Rednotdead]

Clinton will probably be in power though, and I doubt she'll differentiate much from Obama on the issue.

But why is it such an issue? We haven't had any trade agreement with the US in our history - now suddenly it's supposedly a critical issue.

 

[Rednotdead]

You're better off just reading this thread believe me.

Even that's doing my head in!

 

[Akshay]

People love to talk about successful independent countries like Singapore but miss the point that 1/3 of their population are immigrants, mostly unskilled foreign labour working in the construction industry that has put the country where it is along with a sizeable number of "foreign talents" recruited to fill shortfalls in their industries. It takes planning and management from the very top to manage a successful country, our problem starts when we elect clowns that couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and then we fail to follow up on their broken promises and push them to carry out the works we pay our taxes for.

It also doesn't really make much sense to talk about Singapore as independent because it's one of the most trade dependent economies in the world. Singapore's trade barriers are far lower than pretty much any other developed nation. Large portions of some sectors of the industry are owned and run by foreigners (like oil). If the UK wanted to be more like Singapore it would have to open its borders and markets more, not less.

 

[Javi]

It also doesn't really make much sense to talk about Singapore as independent because it's one of the most trade dependent economies in the world. Singapore's trade barriers are far lower than pretty much any other developed nation. Large portions of some sectors of the industry are owned and run by foreigners (like oil). If the UK wanted to be more like Singapore it would have to open its borders and markets more, not less.

It would have to move it's position to south east asia to be like Singapore that's how ridiculous such comparsions are as the UK is unique in geographic position, economy and history.

 

[Bury Red]

But why is it such an issue? We haven't had any trade agreement with the US in our history - now suddenly it's supposedly a critical issue.

Heard of the Buy American Act? It's one of the main reasons we don't export much into the US as any State or Federal funded scheme has to prioritise American manufactured goods over imports. A level of protectionism that the EU would not allow between member states but one that the US has had in place since before WWII and likely to be one of the main stumbling blocks to TTIP or any deal we try to strike independently.

 

[Rednotdead]

Heard of the Buy American Act? It's one of the main reasons we don't export much into the US as any State or Federal funded scheme has to prioritise American manufactured goods over imports. A level of protectionism that the EU would not allow between member states but one that the US has had in place since before WWII and likely to be one of the main stumbling blocks to TTIP or any deal we try to strike independently.

So basically no change from the present, whether we're in or out.

 

[Bury Red]

So basically no change from the present, whether we're in or out.

Except as Obama said, if we exit the EU/US trade negotiations we would need to restart all over again, he wasn't interfering in our democratic right to this referendum or trying to sway the vote when he said that, just pointing out a fairly straightforward fact. That the Brexit camp still believes we could sign a better trade deal with the US the moment we're out of the EU is just pie in the sky optimism.

 

[Red Defence]

What, the "we're full" argument? Really, when there's 1 immigrant every 10 square miles.

We don't count population density on immigrants alone. We count everyone so that point isn't really relevant.

Why not build more housing, it would help reinvigorate the economy and if more immigrants arrive and work here happily paying their taxes then their contribution will help pay for our increasingly ageing population as well as our idle minority who don't want the work.

The area I live in has just received a letter from the government telling them that they have to build X,000,000 new houses in the next few years. There is nowhere to build this number of houses without losing a very large proportion of the countryside. Not only is the land difficult to build on but the public do not want to lose this amount of land to housing as it is and when you consider that the number of houses needed will probably increase in direct proportion to the population increase you can see why immigration is a major concern for so many people. Even the Labour party are up in arms about it, never mind the public.

Not only will that put a few thousand extra cars on the local roads too, which are struggling to cope with the number of vehicles anyway, but it will massively impact the local schools and hospitals. You could say well just build more roads.....well just build more, the answer to everything eh? The roads cannot be widened without knocking houses down which is of course contrary to the directive from government. It's quite difficult to put any new roads in, again, without knocking houses down.

Over in Cumbria they have started building new houses on land that was flooded a few months ago. When it gets to the stage where you have no choice but to build on flood plains then you have serious problems. Eventually one can only hope that these sort of issues will knock some sense into the "well just build more houses" brigade.

The reason the remain campaign have probably not raised the immigration argument is that they realise that neither side has the answer to it, in fact they know it's not really a problem anyway. Of our immigrants only 1 in 10 illegal immigrants smuggle their way into Britain, most arrive legally and then overstay their visas so taking back our borders (which we never actually gave up) will achieve very little. If anything seeing how well most of our civil service works we'll probably allow more through than get through at present. We try to tackle the black market employers who keep illegal immigrants in usury and modern slavery, the traffickers who bring them over etc but successive governments have failed to put a significant dent in the numbers because our incessant need for cheaper services and goods creates the market conditions that bring them here in the first place. The legal economic migrants from the EU and elsewhere actively contribute to our society and are a net benefit to the countries purse despite many of them living in pretty horrendous conditions and doing work our own labour force will not, even if we leave the EU we will still need similar numbers of willing workers prepared to accept low wages and poor conditions, I'd love it if all workers were well paid and well treated but capitalism put paid to that dream decades ago.

The simple fact is, immigration is not actually a problem so no government is going to go to great lengths to try and tackle it other than staging a few high profile raids in support of the modern day slavery bill. That won't stop the politicians using immigration as a convenient smoke screen for everything else that ails us, it's always been easier to blame our woes on Johnny Foreigner than to tackle the real issues and frankly our ruling class would rather their mates in big business are left in peace to dodge tax and exploit the poor whilst we're busy buying into the press manipulation that demonises the immigrant, the poor, the sick and the needy.

Of course immigration is a problem and the Remain camp know it, that's why they don't mention it.

Immigration per se is not a problem but uncontrolled immigration is. If you have no control over the amount of people coming to live in a country then you risk a collapse of services which just cannot cope with the numbers. Do you honestly think people cannot see that for themselves? Well they can because many of them are in the middle of it. Even if you can't see it you can surely follow the logic that increased numbers mean increased pressure on services.

With unregulated immigration the country is making a rod for it's own back. Say a million come in next year.......where do you put them? Do we have 500,000 empty houses waiting for people to move into. No of course we don't. Do we have spare schools and hospitals in a cupboard somewhere which we can pull out when needed. No of course we don't. Even a frantic rush to build wouldn't help because before you know it there could be another million (or two or three) the following year. You can plan for a future that you can see and predict but you sure as hell can't plan for one when you haven't the faintest notion of what is going to happen.

 

[lynchie]

We don't count population density on immigrants alone. We count everyone so that point isn't really relevant.

The area I live in has just received a letter from the government telling them that they have to build X,000,000 new houses in the next few years. There is nowhere to build this number of houses without losing a very large proportion of the countryside. Not only is the land difficult to build on but the public do not want to lose this amount of land to housing as it is and when you consider that the number of houses needed will probably increase in direct proportion to the population increase you can see why immigration is a major concern for so many people. Even the Labour party are up in arms about it, never mind the public.

Not only will that put a few thousand extra cars on the local roads too, which are struggling to cope with the number of vehicles anyway, but it will massively impact the local schools and hospitals. You could say well just build more roads.....well just build more, the answer to everything eh? The roads cannot be widened without knocking houses down which is of course contrary to the directive from government. It's quite difficult to put any new roads in, again, without knocking houses down.

Over in Cumbria they have started building new houses on land that was flooded a few months ago. When it gets to the stage where you have no choice but to build on flood plains then you have serious problems. Eventually one can only hope that these sort of issues will knock some sense into the "well just build more houses" brigade.

Of course immigration is a problem and the Remain camp know it, that's why they don't mention it.

Immigration per se is not a problem but uncontrolled immigration is. If you have no control over the amount of people coming to live in a country then you risk a collapse of services which just cannot cope with the numbers. Do you honestly think people cannot see that for themselves? Well they can because many of them are in the middle of it. Even if you can't see it you can surely follow the logic that increased numbers mean increased pressure on services.

With unregulated immigration the country is making a rod for it's own back. Say a million come in next year.......where do you put them? Do we have 500,000 empty houses waiting for people to move into. No of course we don't. Do we have spare schools and hospitals in a cupboard somewhere which we can pull out when needed. No of course we don't. Even a frantic rush to build wouldn't help because before you know it there could be another million (or two or three) the following year. You can plan for a future that you can see and predict but you sure as hell can't plan for one when you haven't the faintest notion of what is going to happen.

Leaving the EU will have pretty much zero impact on population growth.

 

[lynchie]

Just reposting this here

As I pointed out, the figures you're using there are for two different years, so aren't comparable.

Just looking at the first link you provided, which was for up to June 2014:

the population grew by 491,100.
Of that, natural population growth accounted for 226,200

So that's 46% which has nothing to do with immigration.

Then, of the 259,700 that was due to net migration, the article doesn't specify, and I'm open to challenge, but I understand that typically EU and non-EU immigration numbers are pretty similar. So around 130,000 net migration from the EU. Which is 26% of the total population growth.

So leave the EU and shut down all EU immigration, and you cut population growth by 25%. Except that assumes that all the people that would leave the UK under the current freedom of movement laws still leave, which is unlikely. So you're cutting population growth by less than 25%. Pulling a number out of my backside, let's say we're still cutting by 20%.

And then it'll turn out we actually NEED a certain proportion of those EU immigrants for their various expertise, and to keep our Universities populated with students, so maybe half of that cut in population growth disappears as well. Then we've messed up the economy for a 10% cut in population growth. Population growth that we're now much less well-equipped to deal with because of the buggered economy.

Hurray!

 

[Red Defence]

Leaving the EU will have pretty much zero impact on population growth.

You haven't a clue what the impact will be on population growth if we leave the EU. No-one does. It's unlikely to increase as much as if we remained in the EU though. Lack of freedom of movement should theoretically reduce the level at which it increases.

 

[Rednotdead]

Except as Obama said, if we exit the EU/US trade negotiations we would need to restart all over again, he wasn't interfering in our democratic right to this referendum or trying to sway the vote when he said that, just pointing out a fairly straightforward fact. That the Brexit camp still believes we could sign a better trade deal with the US the moment we're out of the EU is just pie in the sky optimism.

But, as I've already said, we haven't had a trade deal with the US in our history. Without a trade deal with the US after we exit the EU, why will things be any worse than they are now? No trade deal before, no trade deal after.

 

[Javi]

With unregulated immigration the country is making a rod for it's own back. Say a million come in next year.......where do you put them? Do we have 500,000 empty houses waiting for people to move into. No of course we don't. Do we have spare schools and hospitals in a cupboard somewhere which we can pull out when needed. No of course we don't. Even a frantic rush to build wouldn't help because before you know it there could be another million (or two or three) the following year. You can plan for a future that you can see and predict but you sure as hell can't plan for one when you haven't the faintest notion of what is going to happen.

But why would a million of people storm the UK when they have nowhere to live?

 

[FlawlessThaw]

But, as I've already said, we haven't had a trade deal with the US in our history. Without a trade deal with the US after we exit the EU, why will things be any worse than they are now? No trade deal before, no trade deal after.

Hard to take anything you say seriously given your obvious lack of knowledge shown in the Jo Cox thread.

 

[Jippy]

EU debate back in full swing with Cameron on BBC1. Dimbleby loving his chance to be awkward.

 

[Rednotdead]

Hard to take anything you say seriously given your obvious lack of knowledge shown in the Jo Cox thread.

Well, don't then. Why would I care whether you take anything I say seriously or not?

 

[Smores]

Leaving the EU will have pretty much zero impact on population growth.

But that's based on historic numbers and you're still discounting very large volumes tbf. I'd also say that a Brexit would result in a greater control of our borders overall so it would fall.

Immigration isn't much of an issue now (certainly not more than tory austerity) but the absence of control is a concern.

It's just very difficult to make the argument that immigration isn't an issue when you have no control over it. This referendum may only relate EU immigration but I think most on the Leave side are using as a tool against all immigration.

Should have just had Brown's ID cards

 

[Smores]

EU debate back in full swing with Cameron on BBC1. Dimbleby loving his chance to be awkward.

Cameron is looking dead on his legs. He knows he's done if there's a Brexit. Couldn't answer the question on why he has credibability to stay.

Overall perhaps we should have experts in these debates and not politicians

 

[Jippy]

Cameron is looking dead on his legs. He knows he's done if there's a Brexit. Couldn't answer the question on why he has credibability to stay.

Overall perhaps we should have experts in these debates and not politicians

Thought he's been ok broadly, but weak on that (somewhat cnuty) question and the non-EU migration q.

 

[Dan]

Cameron getting worked up at stripey shirt man.

 

[Jippy]

Some of the crowd are downright rude tbf.

 

[Rednotdead]

But that's based on historic numbers and you're still discounting very large volumes tbf. I'd also say that a Brexit would result in a greater control of our borders overall so it would fall.

Immigration isn't much of an issue now (certainly not more than tory austerity) but the absence of control is a concern.

It's just very difficult to make the argument that immigration isn't an issue when you have no control over it. This referendum may only relate EU immigration but I think most on the Leave side are using as a tool against all immigration.

Should have just had Brown's ID cards

This whole immigration issue came about because of Blair's "Newlab" multiculturalism experiment whereby mass uncontrolled immigration was allowed. He's since admitted (most unusually for him) it was a mistake.

 

[Rednotdead]

Some of the crowd are downright rude tbf.

That's why they've been chosen as an audience in the first place!

 

[Jippy]

That's why they've been chosen as an audience in the first place!

They must advertise for 'narrow-minded bigot from Dover', 'bitter NHS worker', 'angry lefty teacher' etc...

 

[Bury Red]

We don't count population density on immigrants alone. We count everyone so that point isn't really relevant.

I've lived and worked in Singapore, Hong Kong and India, I know what high population density is and we're about as far removed from it as you can get. Sure there's some built up areas that could do with spreading out a bit and the traffic jams around our major cities are a disgrace but that comes down to the idiotic planning and deliberate neglect of successive governments as I said before. Once you're out of those traffic jams though the country's fairly open and pretty fecking empty, I did a trip along around 1/3 of the UK coastline with an American colleague last week looking at erosion issues and drawing up a business plan to meet the Environment Agency with and this place is wide open, hell we've got areas on the coast where so few fecks are given we just allow the land and the houses on it to be washed away.

The area I live in has just received a letter from the government telling them that they have to build X,000,000 new houses in the next few years. There is nowhere to build this number of houses without losing a very large proportion of the countryside. Not only is the land difficult to build on but the public do not want to lose this amount of land to housing as it is and when you consider that the number of houses needed will probably increase in direct proportion to the population increase you can see why immigration is a major concern for so many people. Even the Labour party are up in arms about it, never mind the public.

Not only will that put a few thousand extra cars on the local roads too, which are struggling to cope with the number of vehicles anyway, but it will massively impact the local schools and hospitals. You could say well just build more roads.....well just build more, the answer to everything eh? The roads cannot be widened without knocking houses down which is of course contrary to the directive from government. It's quite difficult to put any new roads in, again, without knocking houses down.

The government have sent your area a letter announcing their plans? Really? I wouldn't put too much stow in it and unless you've actually got an original copy of the letter I'd question the veracity of the figures you're being fed because I'd suspect the tickly feeling around your ring is the teeny moustache the racist fecker blowing smoke up your arse wears. X Million new homes in the next few years? Do you realise that last year the whole of the UK built just over 150,000 new homes and that's a post WWII high, yet your area is going to get over 10 times that? Did they mention the mosques springing up like triffids too?

Infrastructure will need to be built with new homes again improving prosperity and creating jobs, unfortunately our government usually chooses to go about it all the wrong way. My primary school was struggling to cope with the baby boomers so stuck in prefabricated buildings in the late 60s to increase the number of classes as a temporary measure as did my secondary school. Both those temporary measures are still in place at both as permanent facilities some 40 years on and I doubt anyone is questioning it any more. Fairfield General similarly had 1 entire wing of prefabs put in that are still there, despite the fact that they have since demolished nearby Bury General and lumped all the facilities on the one overcrowded and underfunded site. That we let our politicians get away with this sort of snow job is the crime here and that we instead choose to blame the problems on the waves of immigrants flooding our green and pleasant land rather than our own ineptitude is our great failing.

Why widen narrow village roads and demolish houses, build new roads around the periphery to the new estates and boost the local infrastructure and economy as a result, similarly build new schools, health centres etc as and where necessary.

Over in Cumbria they have started building new houses on land that was flooded a few months ago. When it gets to the stage where you have no choice but to build on flood plains then you have serious problems. Eventually one can only hope that these sort of issues will knock some sense into the "well just build more houses" brigade.

Yeah, if it's not become clear yet I'm a Civil Engineer who specializes in flood defence, river and coastal engineering, roads and foundations. It's our own shit planning and underfunding to blame yet again, that's also the main reason over 2/3 of my professional career has been spent working in places like Singapore and Hing Kong where they take Engineering seriously.

Of course immigration is a problem and the Remain camp know it, that's why they don't mention it.

Immigration per se is not a problem but uncontrolled immigration is. If you have no control over the amount of people coming to live in a country then you risk a collapse of services which just cannot cope with the numbers. Do you honestly think people cannot see that for themselves? Well they can because many of them are in the middle of it. Even if you can't see it you can surely follow the logic that increased numbers mean increased pressure on services.

With unregulated immigration the country is making a rod for it's own back. Say a million come in next year.......where do you put them? Do we have 500,000 empty houses waiting for people to move into. No of course we don't. Do we have spare schools and hospitals in a cupboard somewhere which we can pull out when needed. No of course we don't. Even a frantic rush to build wouldn't help because before you know it there could be another million (or two or three) the following year. You can plan for a future that you can see and predict but you sure as hell can't plan for one when you haven't the faintest notion of what is going to happen.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it a few times and even hazarded a guess as to why the Remain camp have not officially addressed it. Because it's not a fecking problem! It's a smokescreen the politicians and the media love to use to cover over their deficiencies. We can address it, manage it and boost our economy at the same time or we can ignore it, demonize it and moan about it and all our lives will get progressively worse as a result.

 

[Red Defence]

The government have sent your area a letter announcing their plans? Really? I wouldn't put too much stow in it and unless you've actually got an original copy of the letter I'd question the veracity of the figures you're being fed because I'd suspect the tickly feeling around your ring is the teeny moustache the racist fecker blowing smoke up your arse wears. X Million new homes in the next few years? Do you realise that last year the whole of the UK built just over 150,000 new homes and that's a post WWII high, yet your area is going to get over 10 times that? Did they mention the mosques springing up like triffids too?

Yes, apologies, I meant thousands not millions. It will increase the population of the area by 20%. The remaining bit I have quoted is not worthy of a response, apart from to say that such a crass comment reflects badly on you, not me.

 

[Bury Red]

Yes, apologies, I meant thousands not millions. It will increase the population of the area by 20%. The remaining bit I have quoted is not worthy of a response, apart from to say that such a crass comment reflects badly on you, not me.

Oh Boo Hoo! You don't care whether people take you seriously on the internet or not but take offence when someone gets a bit sarky in their response to what are clear inconsistencies in your argument. A common trait from the Brexit crowd in this thread who love to cry foul and claim they're being bullied whenever someone dares to suggest their's a whiff of xenophobia in the immigration argument.