Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
I see people are homing in on the mention of euthanasia. Was a suggestion but people want to make it a bigger issue. Fine, I was just putting it out there as a little something we should be looking at given we have an aging population. Every little helps and all that.

Obviously my views on that are influenced by my own experience of end stage dementia and seeing a room full of similar patients. Maybe you should look the symptoms and signs of end stage dementia up, then you may see where I’m coming from, before judging.

I’m not saying, “65 year old Doris has fell over and broke her hip, quick get the death needle out!”

Just so we are all clear on that.

Anyway. Net migration of around circa 200k per year I don’t think is sustainable. So I want controlled EU and non EU immigration.

Hence me voting to leave the EU.

I’m clearly not saying NO immigration, just enough to keep our population pretty much as it is for environmental and sustainability reasons.

That’s it basically. I’m outta here ;)
 
Anyway. Net migration of around circa 200k per year I don’t think is sustainable. So I want controlled EU and non EU immigration.

Hence me voting to leave the EU.

I’m clearly not saying NO immigration, just enough to keep our population pretty much as it is for environmental and sustainability reasons.

That’s it basically. I’m outta here ;)
Didn't need to vote leave, and subsequently leave the EU, to fix that...
 
I see people are homing in on the mention of euthanasia. Was a suggestion but people want to make it a bigger issue. Fine, I was just putting it out there as a little something we should be looking at given we have an aging population. Every little helps and all that.

Obviously my views on that are influenced by my own experience of end stage dementia and seeing a room full of similar patients. Maybe you should look the symptoms and signs of end stage dementia up, then you may see where I’m coming from, before judging.

I’m not saying, “65 year old Doris has fell over and broke her hip, quick get the death needle out!”

Just so we are all clear on that.

Anyway. Net migration of around circa 200k per year I don’t think is sustainable. So I want controlled EU and non EU immigration.

Hence me voting to leave the EU.


I’m clearly not saying NO immigration, just enough to keep our population pretty much as it is for environmental and sustainability reasons.

That’s it basically. I’m outta here ;)

Cool, how do you reduce EU migration without violating the GFA though?
 
This seems like the equivalent of ASTD (attention seeking twat disorder) for posts. Why don't you just respond to a specific post, instead of trying to wind up most of the posters?
I dont want to wind anyone up but too late i guess. So you understand other peoples opinions that differ to yours? Simple question.
 
It's noticeable how for a good while now pro-Brexit arguments have basically been predicated on complaints against the other side as opposed to any coherent or logical argument in favour of Brexit.
 
Likewise. The point in staying is?

To avoid the economic ruin which would be brought by a no deal Brexit, and the pointlessness and loss of influence that would come with any of the other variations.
 
@Strachans Cigar could you answer my question about why you think leaving the EU will help control immigration?

By stopping freedom of movement from EU countries to the UK

Re: non EU immigration, that obviously needs to be looked at and re evaluated.

I’d expect quotas to be flexible & change at frequent intervals to maintain a preferred approximate population level.
 
It's noticeable how for a good while now pro-Brexit arguments have basically been predicated on complaints against the other side as opposed to any coherent or logical argument in favour of Brexit.

And all the remainers have been calling everyone else a racist for 3 years and wondering why the polls are barely flickering. Maybe Brwned was right in all his smugness
 
By stopping freedom of movement from EU countries to the UK

Re: non EU immigration, that obviously needs to be looked at and re evaluated.

I’d expect quotas to be flexible & change at frequent intervals to maintain a preferred approximate population level.

That doesn't explain anything. We are capable of stopping/reducing non-EU immigration already, but don't. We're capable of throttling EU immigration to some extent, but don't.

Why would having full control of EU immigration make the government suddenly choose to stop/reduce it? Every indication suggests they won't. So what will change?
 
And all the remainers have been calling everyone else a racist for 3 years and wondering why the polls are barely flickering. Maybe Brwned was right in all his smugness

You're literally proving my point.:lol:

I'm not arguing against the fact that a lot of Remainers are condescending cnuts. But the fact is that Brexiteers now rarely ever, if at all, defend Brexit on the terms of what it'll actually involve.
 
Accusing other posters of being in a bubble, so entrenched that they aren't willing to see the merit to an arguement?

Not even entertaining the thought that the arguement might not be as compelling to people outside of your own bubble.

So much of it about right now....
 
That doesn't explain anything. We are capable of stopping/reducing non-EU immigration already, but don't. We're capable of throttling EU immigration to some extent, but don't.

Why would having full control of EU immigration make the government suddenly choose to stop/reduce it? Every indication suggests they won't. So what will change?

The sharp spike of non-EU migrants coming here since Brexit (due to the falling number of EU migrants) shows the government don't want to bring down the numbers at all, even if they're comfortable demonising and scapegoating migrants.
 
Hold up, aren't you Danish anyway? So I'm not sure you could have voted, even if you wanted to? Happy to be proven wrong if that isn't the case...

:lol: no I'm not sure who you're confusing me with but I was born in Belfast, have both a UK and Irish passport, and have lived in England for this whole decade.

We don’t have full control of (EU) immigration because of freedom of movement. A caveat (of sorts) was pointed out earlier, but even that hasn’t been exercised, so I have no faith in the UK government suddenly changing policy if remaining.

Got to go now, sorry. Not bailing out of the debate, honest! ;)

The reason that immigration hasn't been reduced isn't because we haven't used that caveat to control EU immigration. There have been more non-EU migrants than EU migrants in every quarter this decade. It wasn't the EU that forced us to let those non-EU folks in, it was the UK government.

More than that, the number of non-EU immigrants increased significantly and continuously in 2018, almost perfectly balancing out the drop in numbers of EU immigrants over the same time period.

That's what these folks mean when they say Brexit isn't a solution to that problem.

But see what you're saying doesn't really make sense. Essentially your main reason for leaving the EU, as stated above, is to reduce immigration and control it (which you already do) to stop the population growing, but trends are already showing that leaving the EU isn't going to stop it, or even in any way reduce it. So what's the point of leaving the EU if it's not going to give you what you want and just cause, as you said yourself, the economy to get hammered?

Do you think leaving will reduce immigration then?

The government has had every chance to curb non-EU immigration, but hasn't. What will change if we leave the EU?
 
Last edited:
I have a certain amount of sympathy for those complaining about the smugness of remainers as there is certainly a large degree of that from many.

However, the problem for those making that complaint is that the remainers have thus far been largely proven correct in terms of the shitshow Brexit has become, while many of the Leave arguments have (as Remainers predicted) run afoul of reality.

It's a bit rich for one side to complain about the other being smug when they are largely unwilling to admit to their own mistaken assumptions and beliefs, even as those assumptions and beliefs have been laid bare across the Brexit process.
 
That doesn't explain anything. We are capable of stopping/reducing non-EU immigration already, but don't. We're capable of throttling EU immigration to some extent, but don't.

Why would having full control of EU immigration make the government suddenly choose to stop/reduce it? Every indication suggests they won't. So what will change?

Because we would no longer be members of the EU.

If, after leaving, the Lab/Con sitting government don’t lower those levels tangibly as would reasonably be expected after leaving the EU, maybe the anti government/establishment protest vote would then increase, until somebody like Farage ends up as PM. Haha.

Then again, maybe not. We’re British. We put up with a lot before getting thoroughly p*ssed off enough about things to do something about them don’t we?
 
Because we would no longer be members of the EU.

If, after leaving, the Lab/Con sitting government don’t lower those levels tangibly as would reasonably be expected after leaving the EU, maybe the anti government/establishment protest vote would then increase, until somebody like Farage ends up as PM. Haha.

Then again, maybe not. We’re British. We put up with a lot before getting throughly p*ssed off enough about things to do something about them don’t we?

I'm not following your reasoning, sorry. If being out of the EU fixes it, then why has non-EU immigration been so high all these years?
 
I'm not following your reasoning, sorry. If being out of the EU fixes it, then why has non-EU immigration been so high all these years?

Ive not claimed it totally fixes it.

Already said we need to look at levels of non-EU immigration too & re-evaluate that process?
 
Ive not claimed it totally fixes it.

Already said we need to look at levels of non-EU immigration too & re-evaluate that process?
So if immigration is your only point of contention, and you were hoping for government to try to solve it. Knowing that the EU were not stopping you/them, why vote to leave? Ignoring the potential upheaval....
 
The sharp spike of non-EU migrants coming here since Brexit (due to the falling number of EU migrants) shows the government don't want to bring down the numbers at all, even if they're comfortable demonising and scapegoating migrants.

I don't think it's that necessarily cheesy.

immigration is the easy answer to filling gaps in the labour force and solving the issue of generating more tax receipts, by way of income tax, to support the ageing population as they become a bigger drain on the public purse by living longer and having increased morbidity, which results in expensive medical care. I raised a point earlier in the thread that the only way to reduce the need for immigration would be too incentivise the indigenous population (include all permanent residents of all races and ethnicities in this) to have more children. A study issued by the NYT found that in America people are having less children for purely economic reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html

I'm pretty certain that this phenomenon would be found in the UK too if it were investigated.

I estimate the way to incentivise people to more voluminous procreation would be to increase social security by way of free nursery places, better and more social housing and more tax breaks for parenting etc. A positive side effect of this would be a more happy population as a whole. If you look at the 'happiest' nations in such poll, mostly Nordic nations, they have very high levels of social security.

I'd also argue that high levels of immigration in a short space of time leads to fissures in the social fabric. This interpretation of the Brexit vote appears to confirm that.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/08/britains-immigration-paradox

Although, if you were intimating that the government were engaging in divide and conquer tactics then I would tend to agree.
 
Last edited:
Ive not claimed it totally fixes it.

Already said we need to look at levels of non-EU immigration too & re-evaluate that process?

Okay yeah but you've said that's why you think we should leave, which suggests you think it'll at least reduce it to some degree.

I don't think it will reduce it in any meaningful way and the information @Brwned quoted backs that up. If you disagree I'm happy to listen to why you think so, but so far, you haven't given a reason at all.

Of course we'll have to look at non-EU immigration and "fix that" (if you assume that is something that needs fixing). All immigration will be non-EU if we leave.
 
So you voted for financial hardship to fix a problem that won't be fixed. Okay.

Why won’t it be fixed? If we are dictating the rules of entry, then I don’t share that view.

Anyway, spent way too much time on this thread during the course of today, I’m off, so we’ll agree to disagree ;)
 
I cannot believe some are suggesting euthanasia as a form of population control.
 
Why won’t it be fixed? If we are dictating the rules of entry, then I don’t share that view.

Anyway, spent way too much time on this thread during the course of today, I’m off, so we’ll agree to disagree ;)

For the reasons detailed a few times which you keep ignoring.

And yup.
 
Over populations is a problem everywhere.
The funny thing is that in the UK you see teenage mums with a bunch of kids in buggies, more so than other EU countries imho. Sex education is the key

I entirely agree. I’ve gotten to the age now where not only have most of my friends got married and had kids, but that several of them are now having/trying for their second! (I’m early 30s).

Sex education, and also I would be trying to make some serious changes to the child welfare system to try not to incentivise people to have more than one child.

Population growth is a concern for most countries. But I rather doubt either Euthanasia or the death penalty is an effective control for population growth. It is, surely, a miniscule number of people/families that would rather be euthanised? And the death penalty would hardly make a dent also, even if you kill all the inmates currently serving life sentences in the UK (<10k).

This is not to say it is not fine if you support these positions from a moral/political perspective.
The feck is everyone talking about? Europe's problem is not overpopulation - the EU's birth rate is 1.6. Replacement rate is 2.1.

An aging population putting increasing burden on social safety nets is the actual problem that Europe faces, not overpopulation.

Unless, of course, massive immigration waves happen to flood into Europe, exceeding the 2015 crisis by far. But that would not be an issue of population control.

Oh, and Walrus: being in favour of the death penalty is very much incompatible with the EU.
 
The overpopulation argument is widely misunderstood, often wilfully. On both a micro and macro level.

For one, England isn’t actually that over populated when compared to most other big or mainland European countries.

http://theconversation.com/think-yo...-about-population-density-across-europe-90345

Obviously it is in some places (ironically largely not those that voted Leave) but even in the most populous, one of the biggest actual reasons for tension isn't "the foreigners getting in!" as much as it's the raft of privately owned property left empty (80,000 in London alone, for example) or scandalously over priced, forcing the young, the poor and the otherwise restless to seek new, affordable housing - which then either ends up crowding the council system, or needing to be built anew - often on greenbelt land (or brownfield when available)...**

But then for a lot of the Brexit supporting uber landlords actually responsible for this, getting people to blame foreigners, rather than them, for the shortage of affordable living, whilst also demanding that new housing be built and invested in on previously off limits land (and guess who’d be doing that?) is pretty much precisely the point of the whole scam!

But of course, the World is getting more and more populated, right? So this hysteria is definitely based on something reasonable, right?....

Well... kinda?... But also...no.




**... and even then, we’re still a long, long way away from “paving the last bit of green in Albion” ....The urban sprawl has been constantly expanding for centuries, with equally constant opposition. To suddenly decide it’s reached its limit now, in your particular generational stage, seems a bit churlish tbh, no? A bit like every generation's Middle Aged insisting their youth is somehow uniquely awful, disrespectful or incapable...Wee could build a couple of whole new cities on England's green and pleasant lands right now, if we so wished... We did it with Milton Keynes? And that's gone largely quite well. Apart from the whole Wimbledon thing.

And in the end, if it comes down to
“making sure we can provide a reasonable quality of life for everyone in a culturally rich modern society, by building on some Moors and shit” or “ensuring a higher quality for some, the bare minimum for others, and taking everyone back to 1972 in the process, by closing our borders and killing the elderly” Then, I dunno... I’d probs go for the former, tbh?
 
Last edited:
If you look at the graphic @Silva posted above, how else could you interpret a sizable chunk of leave voters wishing for changes such as return to empirial units?

Nostalgia probably plays a major role in that. In contrast however, the result for pre-decimal currency is very low.

It's also worth remembering that the questionnaire may have been constructed to include those particular questions, since subtitle reads % of Leave voters who say the following "should be brought back", as opposed to the respondents themselves suggesting them.

Second bolded part: Not sure anyone has argued that equivalence.

I was just making a general point there.