So if 10,000 people move over here to live in the next month do you really think we'll have 5-10,000 empty houses just sat there waiting for them to move into?
EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.
- Thread starter 711
- Start date
- Status
No, but I'm certain there would be 5000 to 10'000 rooms for them. We've net migration of 200000, where do they all go?
It Is actually 300,000 FYI.
Although you people don't normally care about the conditions that migrants live under, often it is enough that you've professed your supposedly liberal support for unmanaged immigration.
ETA: Ah, you only think they should expect a room. Or a veritable cell as it will turn out to be for some of them.
May I ask Nick, are you in favour of the previous (and I think current, but they may have given up) government's pledge to get net migration into the tens of thousands? If not, what is your preferred level?
I watched a programme a few weeks ago where a man rented a 3 bedroom semi and then proceeded to partition rooms off (illegally of course) and then rented out 6 partitioned rooms to 6 people for £250/wk. He was caught and they were evicted. There were other cases where families were staying in one crappy, unhealthy and unsafe room in houses that had been massively subdivided (illegally again) and they were again being ripped off for rent. It was also against the Health and Safety regs and a fire risk. That's what's happening now. People are being jammed into small living areas because there is nowhere else to live.
Today I got a leaflet through my door asking if I could house a homeless person (both employed and unemployed) until somewhere was found for them to live. There is a shortage of housing all across the country and that's well known. The EU countries that have accepted all the refugees have nowhere to house them either so they are living temporarily in various types of converted buildings and have been for months now. Countries do not have thousands and thousands of spare houses sat waiting for people to move into, no more than you would have room to house an extra 10 or 20 people in your house.
Maybe over time we could get the number of economic migrants down to the high 10,000s, i don't know. It certainly wouldn't be at that level once we included asylum seekers however, who presently stand at a relatively low number in comparison. And provided that we allow refugees to work more readily, the government ought to feel a greater degree of flexibility in the numbers it accepts (an additional 20,000 p/a is possible in the short term i think).If combined with improvements in training programmes and apprenticeships, the UK can certainly aspire to a figure closer to 150,000. And further education aside, a sector like agriculture could enquire for workers in this country.
We have also got to heed the concerns of individual communities, as it benefits neither the native nor incoming residents if the the public services are unable to cope. If a particular district stands to be adversely affected, and the chances of integration diminished, government should be acting to prevent such.
So...sure, i would like for accountability to reside at parliament here, but immigration isn't front and centre in my decision making.
Last edited:
This is where I feel the point on the unfairness towards non-EU migrants that Leavers like yourself and Chakravarty put forward falls down - non-EU net-migration is higher than EU net-migration - 190,000 to 170,000, and it has stood at around that level of 200,000 for almost 20 years now. So the point that Chakravarty made about non-EU citizens being hard done by doesn't wash, and the further point that I've heard Farage make that we could end up more lenient towards non-EU skilled migration if we left the EU would also seem to be nonsense, as you'd still have to halve it to get it down to those tens of thousands, even if absolutely everyone from the EU were barred from entry.
But proportionately speaking, ought not the gap be greater still? There's a whole lot more world out there after all (many with fluency in English). And from a simple fairness standpoint, there is no reason why someone from Bulgaria should be viewed more favourably than a non-European.
Given the stability of the numbers on the net non-EU side for that length of time, I'd say that EU migration has no discernible effect on the levels of the non-EU side. Unless we think that net non-EU would (or should) be at 250,000+ right now, and I'm not sure many Leavers would agree that that's desirable.
What would happen is the system would be made equally bad for everyone were we to leave, it wouldn't be made any easier for non EU migrants. Make it easier for a Pakistani to bring his bride over? Not a chance
I've watched programs to.
Build higher, build faster and above all build more housing
Where do you live and who was the leaflet from out of interest?
Still can't decide which way I'll vote.
On one hand I can't stomach giving the Tories carte blanche to run the country as they please with no EU buffer to keep them in check, on the other hand I'm not a fan of the corporatism culture within the EU nor do I consider it a particularly democratic unionship. Also the thought of Dodgy Dave being inevitably forced to resign if the UK leaves makes me smile.
Any left wingers here who are voting Brexit? I know @Silva is one.
On one hand I can't stomach giving the Tories carte blanche to run the country as they please with no EU buffer to keep them in check, on the other hand I'm not a fan of the corporatism culture within the EU nor do I consider it a particularly democratic unionship. Also the thought of Dodgy Dave being inevitably forced to resign if the UK leaves makes me smile.
Any left wingers here who are voting Brexit? I know @Silva is one.
Those two lines shall move even farther apart in the years ahead.
Translation:
Disregard the wishes of local communities; bring in other eastern Europeans to exploit, thereby using their cheap labour to build further low quality housing; and don't heed concerns of sustainability. Those on the left of Leave are prepared to fight for better rights, whereas you'll content yourself with a status quo of diminishing returns.
Yesterday we heard Corbyn parrot the same old trite platitudes of reforming the EU from within, in spite of there being no basis upon which to believe such is possible.
Nah, not any more, I don't trust England to vote the Tories out. If having proof the PM and a swathe of MPs are happy to rig the tax system for the rich isn't enough to have them unceremoniously booted, a Brexit may not be enough to see Boris or Gideon being rejected.
Suppose I'm sort of a leftie...anyway, strongly considered voting to leave for pretty much all of the reasons you have. I don't think a remotely strong case has been made for leaving so far, and UKIP have done nothing to explain how it'll potentially affect the economy etc, so I'll probably reluctantly stick with In since it's something we can quite easily come back to if the EU continues to get worse.
When previous governments have either refused outright or reneged on referenda in the past? And when the majority of the establishment support the EU contrary to many of their own beliefs?
What, are we going to become a one-party state?
Interesting that you said England rather than Britain though, for i suspect that disillusioned Brexiters (in the event of a defeat) will turn their gaze toward English devolution.
Last edited:
A not-so-veiled threat!
Rather a prediction of likely events. The Scottish referendum got the ball rolling, or Labour botched implementation of devolution if one goes further back. This Government is nominally committed to EVEL too don't forget. Whilst i am at heart a unionist, i also realise than an Independent England is an alternative route to leaving the EU (this latter prospect would be decades distant mind).
If we want predictions: the (only) poll I've seen sees Boris wiping the floor with Corbyn, while he reverses that on Osbourne. So Stay would be the best chance for leftists to control Westminster in 2020.
Of course, it's only 1 poll...
We either build a lot of new houses or we accept that prices will inflate out of reach of everyone. Yes we will have to disregard the wishes of local communities. There doesn't have to be anything cheap about the new housing nor do the people who work on them have to be exploited
Boris just now
Last edited:
Higher...yes we tried that in the 60s and 70s and we've been tearing them down for the last 15 yrs or so because they turned into filthy dens of crime and drug/alcohol abuse.
Faster...yes, build em fast and they'll never last.
So, where are you planning on building this massive number of houses then? And who's funding it all.
We've had a Tory party in power since 2010 who, despite their leadership being pro-EU, have a large number of MP's and prominent figures who are pro-Brexit. The current favourite to be the next PM is one who supports Brexit. Considering the Tories have a largely pro-Brexit membership as well, it's not going to be an issue which goes away anytime soon for as long as they're anywhere near power.
Ex council housing is some of the most popular with by to let landlords in the coutry. Also higher doesn't necessarily mean sky scrapers.
Faster means less time to get planning permission
The great thing about housing is that you can flog it or rent it to pay for it, also the government can borrow at near zero intrest rates
Yet we haven't built them up to now and I don't see that changing.
Boris Johnson accuses Barack Obama of 'hypocrisy'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36057947
Think he's worried a little.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36057947
Think he's worried a little.
100% accurate in what he is saying though.
Yet is nevertheless a divisive and disruptive issue, and the next leader, whoever that may bem isn't likely to revisit the matter. Furthermore, party HQ is actively seeking to reduce the power wielded by local constituency associations. Unlike some of yuo here i do not foresee endless terms of a Conservative majority government, in which case a referendum would most certainly be off the agenda. The former EU Constitution subsequent Lisbon Treaty are lesson enough of how events are likely to play out. There will be decades before voters get another say on membership.
It is the simple truth, no US president would accept the sort of the political dynamic he is asking of Britain.
Worried would be something like this from Osborne :: http://www.theguardian.com/business...orne-says-brexit-will-drive-up-interest-rates
#George #ProjectBullsh*t
He is spot on about the US though and his argument on that video is very persuasive. If/when Obama weighs in he is likely to have exactly the opposite reaction to the one he intends.
We aren't Scotland though Cheesy. If Britain votes to remain I think that is it for thirty years or more.
Such a great sentence.
Such a great sentence.
I don't know what you're talking about, Cameron is as trustworthy as a cub scout.
Who cut the badges off other boys' jumpers and sewed them on his own.
Last edited:
Hadn't seen that before. It's quite a good interview. He's right about the US and Obama too.
Mind you. I take no notice of other leaders when they come out against Brexit. They would expect (and get) the same favour from Cameron if the situation was reversed.
EU exit 'could leave households £4,300 a year worse off'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36068892
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36068892
Two quick points:
- Osborne actually has the temerity to talk about cuts. Let's see how that is received shall we.
- Inherent flaws of the European project, namely the Eurozone, have been adversely affecting the British and wider continental economy for several years.
Last edited:
Have you noticed that the word they preface every sombre statement with is "could". Not will but could. Well anything "could" happen I suppose. We "could" be worse off or then again we "could" be better off. There "could" be difficulty with new trade deals, then again they might be a breeze. Our security "could" be more at risk, then again we may be more secure if we leave. Shares "could" go down, then again they "could" go up.
It's been interesting (for me) watching all these "coulds" crop up in the last few weeks. There'll be some more but take them for what they are....merely coulds. They can't say any more than "could" because they really haven't a clue, but I think they hope that if they say it often enough it will register with voters as fact, not supposition.
I've thought the same RD. Hopefully as the vote get closer various governments and industries will commit themselves as to what they will actually do if we leave the status quo, and the alternatives will become clearer, and less of 'we could'.
Seems like the politicians are out in force once again demonstrating their complete lack of understanding on forecasts and figures.
Even if we take that forecast as correct, it's GDP per Household not household income. By the sounds of it Tim Farron really doesn't understand the difference.
I'm starting to move towards Leave but I think it's more because of the bullshit arguments the remain camp keep putting out.
- Status