Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Brwned]

Yeah PRE-Brexit. Sure. Maybe they didn't expect the referendum result, therefore underestimating depth of feeling pre-Brexit. They know now.

By default, that means leaving the EU does not solve your problem. It might indirectly contribute to a growing movement of anti-immigration sentiment that the government eventually cave into, and it'll make it easier to administer as a result of having a set of immigration laws applicable to everyone (except British territories presumably).

However the act of leaving the EU categorically does not solve that problem. That problem exists irrespective of that. We know this conclusively, as you've just agreed to by accepting the immigration facts.

That leads us onto some follow-up questions:

1. If this problem existed before Brexit, why didn't they solve it?
2. If one of the messages from the Leave was we need to leave the EU to solve this problem, and we know that's factually untrue, why should we belive their messages about the future?
3. If Brexit was sending a message about immigration, why is it there has been a continuous increase in Non-EU immigrants over the last year, despite the government being the ones who control that element of immigration?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Non-EU net immigration to the UK is currently at its highest level since 2004 - didn't the government get the message?

As EU immigration is only slightly higher than British emigrants the net effect is non-EU immigrants have replaced EU immigrants.

Wonder what the message was?

 

[Strachans Cigar]

By default, that means leaving the EU does not solve your problem. It might indirectly contribute to a growing movement of anti-immigration sentiment that the government eventually cave into, and it'll make it easier to administer as a result of having a set of immigration laws applicable to everyone (except British territories presumably).

However the act of leaving the EU categorically does not solve that problem. That problem exists irrespective of that. We know this conclusively, as you've just agreed to by accepting the immigration facts.

That leads us onto some follow-up questions:

1. If this problem existed before Brexit, why didn't they solve it?
2. If one of the messages from the Leave was we need to leave the EU to solve this problem, and we know that's factually untrue, why should we belive their messages about the future?
3. If Brexit was sending a message about immigration, why is it there has been a continuous increase in Non-EU immigrants over the last year, despite the government being the ones who control that element of immigration?

Already said EU/Non-EU immigration aren’t mutually exclusive?

1. Insufficient motivation to do so. Lack of legislation to do so. Coalition government 2010-15 with the Liberal party?

2. “If” ?

3. Because the government haven’t “toughened” the entry criteria yet.

 

[Cascarino]

Well how do you possibly predict impending Brexit chaos based on nothing ?

We've never steered the Earth into the sun but I don't need historical data to know it's a fecking bad idea.

 

[afrocentricity]

Environment & sustainability > economic growth.

Even though we don't have to leave the EU or take a hit to the economy to address either of those issues? In fact, there are better ways.

I'm done anyway, as far as compelling leave arguements go. I think yours have been bottom barrel...

 

[Cheesy]

Already said EU/Non-EU immigration aren’t mutually exclusive?

1. Insufficient motivation to do so. Lack of legislation to do so. Coalition government 2010-15 with the Liberal party?

2. “If” ?

3. Because the government haven’t “toughened” the entry criteria yet.

Off to bed now. Toodles.

Ultimately if you live in a highly globalised world it's hard to reduce immigration numbers significantly without damaging your economy, which will - in some sectors - often depend on a steady flow of migrants to fill certain roles within the economy.

The major parties evidently realise this, but nevertheless continue to demonise migrants all the same because it's easy to do so as they're easy targets.

 

[Brwned]

Already said EU/Non-EU immigration aren’t mutually exclusive?

1. Insufficient motivation to do so. Lack of legislation to do so. Coalition government 2010-15 with the Liberal party?

2. “If” ?

3. Because the government haven’t “toughened” the entry criteria yet.

Off to bed now. Toodles.

I'm not sure what you mean. Non-EU immigration has a bigger impact on overall immigration levels than EU immigration levels. The government are in control of Non-EU immigration levels, and throughout that time have not reduced those numbers. They have chosen not to. Leaving the EU will not make it any easier to do so. These are all facts.

If you accept those facts, then you agree that leaving the EU will not fix that problem. The government might decide to reduce immigration levels, or they might not. Your choice to leave the EU does does not force them to reduce immigration levels. When the Leave campaign implied that they could not control immigration levels while being in the EU, they were not being truthful. We could control immigration levels, and chose not to. These are not interpretations but statements of fact also. If you have some facts that contradict them, feel free to put them forward.

The control they exerted over immigration was as follows: in every quarter of the last decade they were happy to have more immigrants coming into the country, than the numbers that chose to come to the EU as a result of freedom of movement. How do we know that? The highest number of immigrants coming to the UK from the EU, as a result of free movement, was in Q2 2016 when 284,000 people moved here. In that same quarter, the government chose to allow 291,000 people from outside the EU to come in. So we know, conclusively, that the government does not want fewer immigrants to come in than the EU "forced" us to let in.

That's pre-Brexit, though. What do we know about post-Brexit? Unsurprisingly, lots of folks from the EU were wary about moving the UK, so immigration levels dropped significantly, from 250,000 in Q3 2017 to roughly 200,000 in Q3 2018. The European folks made the government's job easier: if they wanted to reduce overall immigration levels in the past year, all they'd need to do is maintain the number of Non-EU immigrants they accept into the country. Yet over that same period we saw an almost identical increase in Non-EU immigrants, from 290,000 in Q3 2017 to 340,000 in Q3 2018. In every quarter since Q3 2017, we have let in at least 314,000 immigrants from non-EU levels - more than at any point since 2011. And in the latest quarter we have data on, Q3 2018, we let in more non-EU immigrants than at any point over the last decade.

All of the above are not questions of interpretation, but fact. Facts provided to us directly by the UK government, available for you to see right here. What is up for interpretation is the trends. Between Q3 2014 and Q2 2017, non-EU immigration levels stayed incredibly steady - between 280,000 and 300,000 people in every quarter. After Q2 2017, immigration levels increased significantly. What caused that increase? We weren't forced to allow more people in. The most likely explanation, from my perspective, is that we wanted to compensate for the loss in EU immigrants by bringing in more non-EU immigrants. The similarity in the trends is remarkable.

In other words, while controlling immigration might be an objective of yours, the actions of the government both pre- and post-Brexit indicate they have no interest in controlling it in the way you want. Brexit will not force them to do so. It's possible that Brexit will make it easier, as it makes it administratively easier to control. However it's also entirely possible that the government disagree with you entirely, and believe immigration is necessary for the economy, and you'll be in exactly the same position you were before on this specific issue.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

A good read from a non-deluded leave voter

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/op...ow-we-must-swallow-our-pride-and-think-again/

Unsurprising Oborne didn’t publish this article in his Mail column.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[Strachans Cigar]

I'm not sure what you mean. Non-EU immigration has a bigger impact on overall immigration levels than EU immigration levels. The government are in control of Non-EU immigration levels, and throughout that time have not reduced those numbers. They have chosen not to. Leaving the EU will not make it any easier to do so. These are all facts.

If you accept those facts, then you agree that leaving the EU will not fix that problem. The government might decide to reduce immigration levels, or they might not. Your choice to leave the EU does does not force them to reduce immigration levels. When the Leave campaign implied that they could not control immigration levels while being in the EU, they were not being truthful. We could control immigration levels, and chose not to. These are not interpretations but statements of fact also. If you have some facts that contradict them, feel free to put them forward.

The control they exerted over immigration was as follows: in every quarter of the last decade they were happy to have more immigrants coming into the country, than the numbers that chose to come to the EU as a result of freedom of movement. How do we know that? The highest number of immigrants coming to the UK from the EU, as a result of free movement, was in Q2 2016 when 284,000 people moved here. In that same quarter, the government chose to allow 291,000 people from outside the EU to come in. So we know, conclusively, that the government does not want fewer immigrants to come in than the EU "forced" us to let in.

That's pre-Brexit, though. What do we know about post-Brexit? Unsurprisingly, lots of folks from the EU were wary about moving the UK, so immigration levels dropped significantly, from 250,000 in Q3 2017 to roughly 200,000 in Q3 2018. The European folks made the government's job easier: if they wanted to reduce overall immigration levels in the past year, all they'd need to do is maintain the number of Non-EU immigrants they accept into the country. Yet over that same period we saw an almost identical increase in Non-EU immigrants, from 290,000 in Q3 2017 to 340,000 in Q3 2018. In every quarter since Q3 2017, we have let in at least 314,000 immigrants from non-EU levels - more than at any point since 2011. And in the latest quarter we have data on, Q3 2018, we let in more non-EU immigrants than at any point over the last decade.

All of the above are not questions of interpretation, but fact. Facts provided to us directly by the UK government, available for you to see right here. What is up for interpretation is the trends. Between Q3 2014 and Q2 2017, non-EU immigration levels stayed incredibly steady - between 280,000 and 300,000 people in every quarter. After Q2 2017, immigration levels increased significantly. What caused that increase? We weren't forced to allow more people in. The most likely explanation, from my perspective, is that we wanted to compensate for the loss in EU immigrants by bringing in more non-EU immigrants. The similarity in the trends is remarkable.

In other words, while controlling immigration might be an objective of yours, the actions of the government both pre- and post-Brexit indicate they have no interest in controlling it in the way you want. Brexit will not force them to do so. It's possible that Brexit will make it easier, as it makes it administratively easier to control. However it's also entirely possible that the government disagree with you entirely, and believe immigration is necessary for the economy, and you'll be in exactly the same position you were before on this specific issue.

1. Leave EU. Stop freedom of movement from the EU.

2. Redesign new, -universal- immigration policy making changes to the current non-EU immigration policy with the initial aim of reducing net migration to government target of c.100k. Bill is currently pending, presumably awaiting the outcome of Brexit, as already linked earlier.

3. If government do not keep promises on immigration, vote for a party that will.

...in fact, maybe vote for another party anyway

Your observations on this situation seem to be: Don’t bother to vote to leave the EU because nothing will likely be done about immigration by the government anyway.


Voting in a General Election is a leap of faith ultimately. If what you vote for doesn’t transpire, if the party you voted for doesn’t honour their manifesto pledges, you have the freedom to change that vote at the next General Election. Simples.

Unlike referendums?

 

[Cheesy]

1. Leave EU. Stop freedom of movement from the EU.

2. Redesign new, -universal- immigration policy making changes to the current non-EU immigration policy with the initial aim of reducing net migration to government target of c.100k. Bill is currently pending, presumably awaiting the outcome of Brexit, as already linked earlier.

3. If government do not keep promises on immigration, vote for a party that will.

...in fact, maybe vote for another party anyway

Your observations on this situation seem to be: Don’t bother to vote to leave the EU because nothing will likely be done about immigration by the government anyway.


Voting in a General Election is a leap of faith ultimately. If what you vote for doesn’t transpire, if the party you voted for doesn’t honour their manifesto pledges, you have the freedom to change that vote at the next General Election. Simples.

Unlike referendums?

Cool. How do you do this without violating the GFA in Ireland?

 

[RochaRoja]

The current thing with Brexiters is trying to perform some kind of group protest, but they're all coming up with different stuff. There's a group on Facebook sharing it all and I'm seeing so many similaraties with the Flat Earth group, especially in terms of how stupid they come across.

We shouldn't call them idiots though because it ignores their real concerns about the EU that they've always had.

They are just so incredibly stupid.

Your country is fecked.

 

[Strachans Cigar]

Cool. How do you do this without violating the GFA in Ireland?

Dunno. Ask Theresa May. Think she’s been having some talks about it.

Ok. I’ve answered enough of this forums questions. How about some of you start answering mine?

1. No UK referendums on any EU treaties passed etc since 1975. Why, when other countries did?

2. Why did Germany & Austria not allow EU8 countries access to their labour markets for the first seven years after EU membership? And how was this deemed acceptable practice within the EU?

 

[Cheesy]

Dunno. Ask Theresa May. Think she’s been having some talks about it.

Ok. I’ve answered enough of this forums questions. How about some of you start answering mine?

1. No UK referendums on any EU treaties passed etc since 1975. Why, when other countries did?

2. Why did Germany & Austria not allow EU8 countries access to their labour markets for the first seven years after EU membership? And how was this deemed acceptable practice within the EU?

You haven't though - you refuse to explain how we can reduce EU immigration without violating the GFA. If you can propose no solution to this your argument is entirely moot.

 

[Strachans Cigar]

You haven't though - you refuse to explain how we can reduce EU immigration without violating the GFA. If you can propose no solution to this your argument is entirely moot.

I asked my questions further up the thread & didn’t get an answer.

Re: GFA. I’ll get back to you.

EDIT:

Easiest technical solution to tick all boxes is a hard border, no?

Nobody in Ireland wants that?

So maintain the border as it is then if that suits you?

Anybody & everybody travelling out of NI to the UK Mainland to be checked as an EU case would be. Maybe a case for UK ID cards to be issued, possibly?

Clearly not an expert on the Irish situ, best I could come up with in 10 minutes. Sorry.

Suppose we could try a united Ireland? *puts tongue in cheek*

 

[caid]

I asked my questions further up the thread & didn’t get an answer.

Re: GFA. I’ll get back to you.

EDIT:

Easiest technical solution to tick all boxes is a hard border, no?

Nobody in Ireland wants that?

So maintain the border as it is then if that suits you?

Anybody & everybody travelling out of NI to the UK Mainland to be checked as an EU case would be. Maybe a case for UK ID cards to be issued, possibly?

Clearly not an expert on the Irish situ, best I could come up with in 10 minutes. Sorry.

Suppose we could try a united Ireland? *puts tongue in cheek*

DUP would bring down government first unfortunately. May said it was basically unthinkable for a PM to break up the union too (i expect she'd do it regardless if she wasn't relying on the DUP).
Its one of the few more practical solutions but breaking the unionists off from the UK is going to have similar problems to breaking republicans off from Ireland. Moving an inch away from the status quo in Northern Ireland is dangerous, always. Brexit isn't particularly compatible with maintaining a status quo.

You should have had referendums on the EU. Its a failure on the part of the British Government. As for your second question, things change. I dont have a better answerr than that, sorry.

 

[Cal?]

Environment & sustainability > economic growth.

How did you conclude that Brexit UK will lead to stronger environmental protection laws?

 

[Stanley Road]

We've never steered the Earth into the sun but I don't need historical data to know it's a fecking bad idea.

Quite sure there is data of other large rocks that have got too close to the sun so crap analogy.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

1. Leave EU. Stop freedom of movement from the EU.

2. Redesign new, -universal- immigration policy making changes to the current non-EU immigration policy with the initial aim of reducing net migration to government target of c.100k. Bill is currently pending, presumably awaiting the outcome of Brexit, as already linked earlier.

3. If government do not keep promises on immigration, vote for a party that will.

...in fact, maybe vote for another party anyway

Your observations on this situation seem to be: Don’t bother to vote to leave the EU because nothing will likely be done about immigration by the government anyway.


Voting in a General Election is a leap of faith ultimately. If what you vote for doesn’t transpire, if the party you voted for doesn’t honour their manifesto pledges, you have the freedom to change that vote at the next General Election. Simples.

Unlike referendums?

Freedom of movement wouldn’t even touch the sides of the government immigration policy. Net non-EU migration since 2000 has been over 200,000 culminating to one of the highest its ever been 261,000 last year. The government claim to full control if this system and they cannot bring the numbers down. Attacking freedom of movement where net migration has in contrast from EU been on average under 100,000 since 2005 when the first EU enlargement happened and down to 57,000 last year, is just another idiocy that leavers spout.

It does help to know your arse from your elbow when talking about these things.

 

[Penna]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly suspect that some leave advocates had African and Asian immigrants in mind when they voted. After all, we've had significant Polish communities in England since the war, and no-one was ever concerned about them.

This is an article about Bradford from August 2016 - Bradford is a very diverse city where a majority voted leave.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...t-behind-post-brexit-tensions-simmer-bradford

 

[Strachans Cigar]

Freedom of movement wouldn’t even touch the sides of the government immigration policy. Net non-EU migration since 2000 has been over 200,000 culminating to one of the highest its ever been 261,000 last year. The government claim to full control if this system and they cannot bring the numbers down. Attacking freedom of movement where net migration has in contrast from EU been on average under 100,000 since 2005 when the first EU enlargement happened and down to 57,000 last year, is just another idiocy that leavers spout.

It does help to know your arse from your elbow when talking about these things.

So arrogant. Typical remainer attitude on here unfortunately.

It’s very easy to dress up longer term averages to back the argument.

Levels of EU immigration were higher than what you are averaging out in the latter years prior to the referendum weren’t they?

Regarding non-EU, let’s see what the new immigration policy brings after it’s unveiled, before judging yeah?

Like I said. Two routes need two doors, not one. Except it will be only one door, as post-EU, that’s all that is required.

 

[Massive Spanner]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly suspect that some leave advocates had African and Asian immigrants in mind when they voted. After all, we've had significant Polish communities in England since the war, and no-one was ever concerned about them.

This is an article about Bradford from August 2016 - Bradford is a very diverse city where a majority voted leave.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...t-behind-post-brexit-tensions-simmer-bradford

I don't think that's an unpopular opinion with a lot of people at all, Penna. It's similar here in Ireland. Polish and EU migrants in general have been widely accepted and integrated into our societies. It helps that they're all hard workers and a lot of them are skilled in areas we have been lacking numbers. It's always been accepted that they're a good thing for the country and the economy in general.

However the attitude towards non-EU nationals, in particular those of African descent seems to be less positive overall, mainly from browsing the net and such, and especially towards refugees. That's largely due to the failure of the government to integrate them into society correctly and just bundle them all into the same area which has caused big rifts in those towns.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly suspect that some leave advocates had African and Asian immigrants in mind when they voted. After all, we've had significant Polish communities in England since the war, and no-one was ever concerned about them.

This is an article about Bradford from August 2016 - Bradford is a very diverse city where a majority voted leave.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...t-behind-post-brexit-tensions-simmer-bradford

I think a decent number mistakenly believe that the EU sets our immigration policy as a whole. I have to say that the backlash against Eastern Europeans surprised me a little after the referendum. That said, I have heard similar complaints about Romanians to the one in the article from white and Asian people where I am 'building houses for the bloody Romanian's' 'they're scruffy' etc.

The immigration that we have seen in more recent years is much more large scale than the immigration than you talk about. Immigrants were much more likely to assimilate in years gone by, many Eastern European immigrants even adopted British names to fit in.

People feel safer and more secure in homogeneous groups so when immigration happens on a larger scale, immigrant communities form, creating a degree of separation. In the UK we have a working class that has been disenfranchised for centuries and now feel their own homogeneous identity being threatened by these communities forming where they live. Which is, in part, what helped create the conditions for Brexit and why we saw things like Polish shops being vandalised etc after the referendum.

 

[Massive Spanner]

So arrogant. Typical remainer attitude on here unfortunately.

It’s very easy to dress up longer term averages to back the argument.

Levels of EU immigration were higher than what you are averaging out in the latter years prior to the referendum weren’t they?

Regarding non-EU, let’s see what the new immigration policy brings after it’s unveiled, before judging yeah?

Like I said. Two routes need two doors, not one. Except it will be only one door, as post-EU, that’s all that is required.

Except post-EU the UK will likely continue to bring EU migrants in anyway. They generate money for the economy and they fill jobs that British workers can't. They also offset the ~300k British people who emigrate to countries like Australia and Canada, as well as other EU countries. None of this is likely to change. These countries will still let British people in and the UK will still let migrants from all those countries in, guaranteed, because it's good for the economy and no government that wants to be in power will want to tank your economy.

You can see above that net migration is actually generally less than 200k a year already.

You are simply living in an absolute dreamland if you think that leaving the EU will help start off a process to get rid of those pesky immigrants that you so badly want to, because it won't. Regardless of what government you get after the UK leaves, and regardless of whether you think they'll cut migration, they more than likely will not, because they need it for a functioning economy and no government wants to rule over a tanking economy because it's a nightmare for them.

You talk about remainer's being smug yet you (and many other leavers) have trundled into this thread time and time again with your ideologies about a post EU UK and what it will entail, only for it always, always to be proven nonsensical with pure facts, and yet you trundle on and on without presenting any of your own facts to support said ideologies. It's no wonder people get frustrated with that.

It's quite simple really, you voted on the basis of something that will not happen. It probably was reasonable to believe that could happen back in 2016 when you voted to leave, so nothing wrong with that, and I certainly won't begrudge you voting to leave if that's your opnion (even though I massively disagree with the idea that immigration = bad and it needs to be curbed), but almost three years later when it's being shown that what you voted for is not going to happen, you should really accept the facts instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

 

[Strachans Cigar]

Except post-EU the UK will likely continue to bring EU migrants in anyway. They generate money for the economy and they fill jobs that British workers can't. They also offset the ~300k British people who emigrate to countries like Australia and Canada, as well as other EU countries. None of this is likely to change. These countries will still let British people in and the UK will still let migrants from all those countries in, guaranteed, because it's good for the economy and no government that wants to be in power will want to tank your economy.

You can see above that net migration is actually generally less than 200k a year already.

You are simply living in an absolute dreamland if you think that leaving the EU will help start off a process to get rid of those pesky immigrants that you so badly want to, because it won't. Regardless of what government you get after the UK leaves, and regardless of whether you think they'll cut migration, they more than likely will not, because they need it for a functioning economy and no government wants to rule over a tanking economy because it's a nightmare for them.

You talk about remainer's being smug yet you (and many other leavers) have trundled into this thread time and time again with your ideologies about a post EU UK and what it will entail, only for it always, always to be proven nonsensical with pure facts, and yet you trundle on and on without presenting any of your own facts to support said ideologies. It's no wonder people get frustrated with that.

It's quite simple really, you voted on the basis of something that will not happen. It probably was reasonable to believe that could happen back in 2016 when you voted to leave, so nothing wrong with that, and I certainly won't begrudge you voting to leave if that's your opnion (even though I massively disagree with the idea that immigration = bad and it needs to be curbed), but almost three years later when it's being shown that what you voted for is not going to happen, you should really accept the facts instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

You sure about 200k? Latterly, I think you are underestimating a tad.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....rnational-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/

My position is consistent.

I care more about the environment than I do about the economy ultimately.

So I’d rather deal with things like utilising the aging population than shovelling a new large town into the UK every year. Sorry if you don’t agree.

And, yet again I have to point this out it seems. BEFORE we have the new, post Brexit immigration policy, we cannot possibly judge what the new net migration figures will be.

 

[JPRouve]

You sure about 200k? Latterly, I think you are underestimating a tad.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....rnational-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/

My position is consistent.

I care more about the environment than I do about the economy ultimately.

So I’d rather deal with things like utilising the aging population than shovelling a new large town into the UK every year. Sorry if you don’t agree.

And, yet again I have to point this out it seems. BEFORE we have the new, post Brexit immigration policy, we cannot possibly judge what the new net migration figures will be.

Could you elaborate a little bit more on the environmental crisis that you are alluding to?

 

[Brwned]

1. Leave EU. Stop freedom of movement from the EU.

2. Redesign new, -universal- immigration policy making changes to the current non-EU immigration policy with the initial aim of reducing net migration to government target of c.100k. Bill is currently pending, presumably awaiting the outcome of Brexit, as already linked earlier.

3. If government do not keep promises on immigration, vote for a party that will.

...in fact, maybe vote for another party anyway

Your observations on this situation seem to be: Don’t bother to vote to leave the EU because nothing will likely be done about immigration by the government anyway.


Voting in a General Election is a leap of faith ultimately. If what you vote for doesn’t transpire, if the party you voted for doesn’t honour their manifesto pledges, you have the freedom to change that vote at the next General Election. Simples.

Unlike referendums?

I see referendums as a serious, considered choice rather than a leap of faith. Looking at the data, I'd say its very unlikely what you hope to happen will happen. As immigration is one of your primary reasons for leaving, I'm surprised you pay so little attention to the essential facts.

Unlike immigration, the GFA is something that leaving the EU will impact. We don't need to make any assumptions about it, we don't need to hope for any future government actions, we know that leaving the EU impacts it instantly. As someone who would be impacted significantly by this, it's quite frustrating to hear that people like you made this leap of faith in total ignorance of this issue, and many others it will cause.

 

[Massive Spanner]

You sure about 200k? Latterly, I think you are underestimating a tad.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....rnational-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/

My position is consistent.

I care more about the environment than I do about the economy ultimately.

So I’d rather deal with things like utilising the aging population than shovelling a new large town into the UK every year. Sorry if you don’t agree.

And, yet again I have to point this out it seems. BEFORE we have the new, post Brexit immigration policy, we cannot possibly judge what the new net migration figures will be.

Ok, circa 250-300k, hardly a massive difference.

Let's say you're talking about the environment, again, you are not really solving anything here. These migrants don't appear from thin air, you know, they'll still cause CO2 emissions in their home countries. At least in a developed country like the UK they might be able to reduce them (if they want).

Also, infrastructure to reduce a country's emissions costs money, A LOT of money. If the UK economy tanks due to Brexit and lower migration, where does this money come from?

I also find it quite hilarious that you're concerned with the environment and therefore want to leave the EU, when it's the EU that are pushing countries like the UK to reduce carbon emissions, and if the UK are out of the EU, they can actually increase emissions if they want because they won't have a lot of the laws the EU have put in place so far.

 

[Strachans Cigar]

I see referendums as a serious, considered choice rather than a leap of faith. Looking at the data, I'd say its very unlikely what you hope to happen will happen. As immigration is one of your primary reasons for leaving, I'm surprised you pay so little attention to the essential facts.

Unlike immigration, the GFA is something that leaving the EU will impact. We don't need to make any assumptions about it, we don't need to hope for any future government actions, we know that leaving the EU impacts it instantly. As someone who would be impacted significantly by this, it's quite frustrating to hear that people like you made this leap of faith in total ignorance of this issue, and many others it will cause.

I never said referendums were a leap of faith. Read again?

Ok me and all the remainers on the forum have a difference of opinion re: immigration.

You lot are confidently predicting immigration will not fall significantly and you are saying that BEFORE the government actually go ahead and change the UK immigration policy.

I’m saying, let’s wait & see before we judge.

Which is the more sensible position?

Sorry I didn’t pay due diligence to the NI situation. If everybody in the UK mainland said that that was at the forefront of their mind when they voted, I’d be very dubious. Doesn’t excuse it though, granted. However, I gave an answer of sorts, which is more than I’ve had to some of my questions, whilst batting off a pack of baying wolves over the last couple of days?

So on that note, I’m off & will leave it all right there. Thanks.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Got to go now, sorry.

I’m off, so we’ll agree to disagree

So on that note, I’m off & will leave it all right there. Thanks.

Jaysus, you're as shite at leaving as the UK.

 

[Smores]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly suspect that some leave advocates had African and Asian immigrants in mind when they voted. After all, we've had significant Polish communities in England since the war, and no-one was ever concerned about them.

This is an article about Bradford from August 2016 - Bradford is a very diverse city where a majority voted leave.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...t-behind-post-brexit-tensions-simmer-bradford

It's certainly what sparked some of the feeling against immigration. It's very diverse but very very segregated to the point of white schools and asian schools, it's a good example of failed immigration. Poor white trash with areas next to them where its 95% asain.
You can sort of understand them voting that way, it's the areas with little immigration that are bemusing but then the media almost make out that all communities are going to be flooded with grooming gangs. Whatever the rags report becomes reality

 

[Kentonio]

I never said referendums were a leap of faith. Read again?

Ok me and all the remainers on the forum have a difference of opinion re: immigration.

You lot are confidently predicting immigration will not fall significantly and you are saying that BEFORE the government actually go ahead and change the UK immigration policy.

I’m saying, let’s wait & see before we judge.

Which is the more sensible position?

To actually pay attention to the fact they could have taken significant action already and chose not to, despite having the power? But now we’re supposed to expect them to act? Why exactly?

 

[stepic]

wait, letting this Tory government have complete power with no EU involvement is meant to result in better environmental policy? that's a good one.

 

[Massive Spanner]

wait, letting this Tory government have complete power with no EU involvement is meant to result in better environmental policy? that's a good one.

Yeah I've never heard of environmental reasons used as an excuse for not wanting immigration in the country before. It's definitely a good one.

Absolute bollocks, but good.

 

[mancan92]

It's always funny when brexiters come in confidently, say their opinion, get their argument completely shut down with clear facts and figures, then play victim of the bully intellectual remainers, then leave. It's as if they are completely incapable of changing their opinion even with the information put on a plate in front of them.

What they need to understand is we are not talking of a matter of opinion this is pure fact.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

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.

You admittied the Uk had full control of non-EU immigrants before

Yeah PRE-Brexit. Sure. Maybe they didn't expect the referendum result, therefore underestimating depth of feeling pre-Brexit. They know now.

Since the referendum non-EU immigration has skyrocketed as already pointed out to you.
We remember the original immigration argument. Brexiters weren't against immigration as such, they just wanted a fairer system so that more people from elsewhere in the world could have the same opportunities as Europeans.

Looks like you have succeeded but now the argument has changed, oddly enough.

Re: GFA.
Clearly not an expert on the Irish situ, best I could come up with in 10 minutes. Sorry.

You've had over three years to think about it , not ten minutes, maybe you should have thought about it before you voted.

So, as you want to decide everybody's future, why not stop all British people emigrating , stop all EU citizens immigrating and you would be almost exactly where you are now and immigration will still be in excess of 200,000.

 

[Stanley Road]

I keep hearing 'we are prepared for a no deal brexit' from eu leaders.

What preparation have eu countries done?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I keep hearing 'we are prepared for a no deal brexit' from eu leaders.

What preparation have eu countries done?

We have open borders to 26 other countries.

 

[Stanley Road]

It's always funny when brexiters come in confidently, say their opinion, get their argument completely shut down with clear facts and figures, then play victim of the bully intellectual remainers, then leave. It's as if they are completely incapable of changing their opinion even with the information put on a plate in front of them.

What they need to understand is we are not talking of a matter of opinion this is pure fact.

Because you have no facts, no historical data to draw upon. Thats a fact for you.

 

[Mogget]

@Strachans Cigar

Can I just ask who you voted for at the last GE? I'm assuming it'll be the Green party given your concern for the environment but I thought I'd just check.