Well, imagine Zarlak telling him:"From that day, I unilaterally cease all associations that I might have with you, Mr. ... and that for an undisclosed duration.".
EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.
- Thread starter 711
- Start date
- Status
Well, imagine Zarlak telling him:"From that day, I unilaterally cease all associations that I might have with you, Mr. ... and that for an undisclosed duration.".
Is that not how people draft their SMS correspondence?!Well, imagine Zarlak telling him:"From that day, I unilaterally cease all associations that I might have with you, Mr. ... and that for an undisclosed duration.".
Well, imagine Zarlak telling him:"From that day, I unilaterally cease all associations that I might have with you, Mr. ... and that for an undisclosed duration.".
Does it not create a paradox if I'm so staunchly against ceasing my association with the EU?
No, feck him. He was removed immediately.
You would deny the permanently disabled a vote, and those who have retired after decades of paying into the system?
Yeah, but it's not though. It's a necessity for trade with the EU, which is essentially a necessity for economic survival as a nation.
Perhaps if the current Governments would stop cutting education and the NHS, we'd not notice the strain of the 0.5% increase every year, making it a complete non-issue. But that's a decision for a general election - so the only sensible option is to ignore immigration entirely while one makes their Yes or No decision.
lol im really not getting into a debate, you come up with reason why it not, ill go away think about it look it up research it come back with reasons why it is and go round in circles.
all ill say is for me after doing a hell of a lot of reserch over the last month or so, for me 330,000 every single year is a very big number. ive gone round and round in circles on this one, ive debated from both sides, ive done everything i can to work out whats right, and the only conclusions i can come to is both sides are both right and wrong and that both sides are in a lot of denial and have spent the campaign mostly acting like knobs!
Read what I put in brackets (never worked a day in their lives), People who have retired have paid into the system so they are eligible, the disabled, it depends on the disability there's people people with disabilities who work it depends on how severe the disability is.
If the disability prevents them from working then of course they are still eligible for a vote, I'm on about the ones who go to the job centre claim they have "forgotten to apply for a job" and go home every week for 10 years and nothing is done.
330,000 is also not the norm. The average over the last 5 years, 10 years and 15 years is almost 100,000 less. Between 237 and 248,000 per year depending on how far back you want to go to avoid looking like you selectively picked your dates. There's also a bit of naughtiness in taking one year that happens to be higher than ever before and painting a picture like this is a.) normal and b.) going to continue.
Let's not be absurd, everybody is entitled to a vote and there's no way it should be any different.
It's a huge increase per year, 330,000 isn't sustainable... every year then know the fact more people are born than die ever year too, and the fact people are living longer.
There is no indication at all that 330,000 is going to continue, let alone whether a 0.5% increase in our population is sustainable or not. In the last 15 years that's happened twice.
Shouldn't the people who are living and working in the UK be eligible then through the EU? do they not have equal rights to people who contribute nothing?
330,000 isn't sustainable really, look at how big Britain is as a landmass, how there aren't enough schools housing or hospitals already.
According to Brexit the Immigration issue is not one of being xenophobic or racist but because these immigrants are supposedly taking the jobs or hospital or school places or benefits of British people - thus they have turned the immigration issue into a financial issue but at the same time refuse to acknowledge that the financial disaster that will hit the UK should they leave won't happen- right ok then
But you have the same amount of people leaving the country, it's not as if 330k peoples are just added to the population throught immigration, it's 330k replacing the 320k emigrants.
Edit: I mixed up numbers.
There wouldn't be enough even if you 'stemmed the tide'. Funding is too small - both in terms of construction and teaching/nursing wages. Even if you stopped immigration/removed all non-nationals, you wouldn't have the qualified staff to man all the schools, hospitals etc.
Rights shouldn't be defined by how much you contribute in my opinion.
I'm not against Immigration, I like the free EU movement. There's nothing wrong with contributing to the economy and paying taxes which more nationals who come here within their own rights do.
I'm not certain what the net-immigration figure is but 330,000 isn't sustainable no matter how you look at it.
How do you define rights?
you can't blame it all on the government, thier as sastics out thier saying just how many houses, schools roads sewage pipes... how many gallons of extra water, how much more electricity.....
the best way i had it described was a guy on youtube, who said summit like: "imgaine the uk is like a bus, at the start of the route its 3/4's full, and at every stop 1 person gets of and 3 get on, your not gonna notice a problem for a while, but eventually all the seats are filled and people start standing.... now a smart bus company at this point would extend the bus(which this bus compay isnt doing) but even so people are getting on quicker then it can be extended and the structure of the bus can only take so many, to add to the problem all the buses around them are filling up to and everyone is running out of fuel(which i think he ment jobs) and some point if it keeps up the bus is headed for disaster"
i know that is very basic, but its about as sensible away some one has explained immigration to me that ive found...... as i dont really understand advanced ecconmics, and all the immigration arguments are a bit out of my understanding if im honest but thats the best ive heard.
so i dont think you can just ignore the immigration issue, it would be lovely if you could, but if your honestly trying to work out which side is right and vote that way you have to take into account immigration other wise your just looking at waht you want to look at, not gennuinly waying up the fors and againsts.
and problem is their are just as good arguments as to why britain needs to stay in for trade, economics...... and i honestly don't know who is right, and me going to a polling station and picking a side, i may as well toss a coin!
Last edited:
Well, despite @Zarlak showing you that 330,000 is a cherry picked figure, I'll ask you - what is sustainable? Because this is exactly the kind of thing the Government can approach the EU with and present a case for why current immigration should be lowered to this. However if we leave, we lose all control over fixing this issue as the EU would turn around and say 'If you want our free trade, these are the terms. End of.' In which case we're fecked economically.
We can fix immigration from within. We can't from outside, as we'd fail economically long before we established 'control over our borders'.
Just to highlight something here, I voted remain.
The EU needs to look at immigration not just for Britain but pretty much each EU country.
I know that's what you go to the EU for
330,000 is last years net immigration, that means people coming after the taking away the number leaving
I dunno. Stuff we're entitled to do? How would you define it?
That's not what I asked but ok, very political answer there.
Isn't that figure made up of both EU and non-EU immigrants? And makes up less than 1% of the current population?
Apologies, I must have misunderstood your question - I wondered why you were asking for a definition - can you clarify it for me?
Yes to both.
Also, the majority of people coming into this country are - and always have been - non eu citizens. But, non eu citizens are more likely to be made up of students, who are therefore more likely to leave.
I've just been arguing with someone on reddit who called me 'blissfully ignorant' and claimed to be voting to Leave because of the 'facts'. And then regurgitated every single lie the Leave campaign have said. When I countered the rubbish with what actually happens in the EU he started to swear and get angry (And I'd actually been civil!).
My incomes guaranteed for the next three years, if I was a smaller man a bit of me would want us to vote leave and see how quickly people get angry that we haven't built 52 hospitals by next year with our '£350m'.
My incomes guaranteed for the next three years, if I was a smaller man a bit of me would want us to vote leave and see how quickly people get angry that we haven't built 52 hospitals by next year with our '£350m'.
In a Spectator podcast of a month or two ago, he suggested that he would be voting Remain. I wonder if Cameron ahs lost some of the Tory vote he acquired during the onslaught of iffy financial reports.
Last edited:
Looks like I'm going to lose my (hopeful) £5 bet on a 10 point remain win, but I can't stomach doing this.
Yeah, you need immigrants more than you think, your +65 years old population is increasing when your -64 yeras old population is decreasing, so you have two solutions you either make babies or welcome immigrants who will pay the bills through taxation.
Precisely, and therefore as students put far more into the economy than they take out for the period in which they study.
Well, most immigrants put more into the economy than they take out.
Aye. Not their fault at all, just how it goes.
I think what you should do is just apply for her settlement visa in loads of different countries across continents... then she should go live in all of them for a little bit at a time and you can follow. She'll be Moroccan all over the world.
.... I'm sorry.
What I mean is what do you makes people eligible for a vote simply "born in the uk, and has been fully naturalised" I personally feel that people who contribute to Tax and work in a country for a number of years should have a vote.
I have friends in their 40s, who have been in the country for 20 years, worked all their lives, has a Bachelors or the equivalent yet they do not have a vote, why should someone who never works a day in their life have a vote over that?
I have other people I know, mid 30s left with a GCSE or below equivalent, never worked yet they have a say? is that fair?
Wow, it is seriously torrential rain in Vauxhall right now. Might put off a few I guess.
Admittedly these are but my speculations of the future, but accepting that proviso...
If for no other reason than practical expediency, we are not going to bring about a situation in which dozens of trade deals are dissolved without the means to sign new ones. If necessary we'll continue with existing practices until they can be reviewed. There will be exceptions of course, and they could be big ones like our opposition to negotiations on TTIP. You might compare it to gardening: the priority will to deal with the pesky leylandi, and the ivy that has gotten to of control; later, the harder to reach weeds.
Although the Swiss comparison is cited often, i think we will try for something less convoluted. And given the simply uniqueness of this situation (including the political and economic turmoil of recent times), the same forces who are currently pressuring us to remain, would also be calling on Brussels to reach an amicable settlement.
You can't just declare it's not an issue as it certainly is for some communities who may be most affected. What are you saying immigration isn't an issue for? Schools? The economy? Hospitals? Jobs? Social cohesion?
If the left never recognise any negative impact of immigration then the Labour party will go no where. Thankfully Corbyn has at least discussed the idea of reintroducing funding to control the impact.
Some here are very sure that immigration isn't a factor worthy of discussion but I'd love to know the number after which they'd consider it an issue. 400k? 500k? 1 million? There must be a number
every citizen should have the right to vote
just because someone is currently unemployed or homeless, does that mean their opinion is any less valid?
- Status