** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[kwackers]

Or we can give up and resign ourselves to constant rapid population increase and a reduction in the real quality of life.

The reduction in the "real quality of life" comes from having no young folk to pay taxes, not because a small number of green fields have houses on them.

The EU wide demand for young workers is going to be interesting for folk with your mindset as our economy sinks due to a lack of labour and other countries compete for what labour exists.
Ageing populations simply can't support themselves so I'm curious as to why you think it's all going to be great...

[thirdcrank]

I see TM has lost tonight's vote. I presume that the Tory rebels hope this means that a so-called hard brexit can now be ensured by defeating the Bill to approve the draft agreement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

More in there from Laura K but it's past my bedtime.

[pwa]

Or we can give up and resign ourselves to constant rapid population increase and a reduction in the real quality of life.

The reduction in the "real quality of life" comes from having no young folk to pay taxes, not because a small number of green fields have houses on them.

The EU wide demand for young workers is going to be interesting for folk with your mindset as our economy sinks due to a lack of labour and other countries compete for what labour exists.
Ageing populations simply can't support themselves so I'm curious as to why you think it's all going to be great...

I don't. I think it will be difficult. We will have to find alternatives to constantly drawing in the young people of other countries. But it isn't just a small number of fields. It is about twenty fields not far from my home and probably something similar near you. And it will continue like that year after year. Each new home puts one or more cars onto the roads. We can forget the cycling if this continues. Everywhere will be too busy.

[old_windbag]

And it will continue like that year after year. Each new home puts one or more cars onto the roads. We can forget the cycling if this continues. Everywhere will be too busy.

I'm seeing that situation happening and is about to go through the roof, but sadly even though the general populace were against new major developments in the area they have been given the green light. Local politicians say they can't object as it is part of the governments housing push, what do people have to do storm the town hall with pitchforks. It demonstrates there is no democracy or right of planning overturn, money rules these decisions. The roads now at school run and "rush hour" times are chaotic and simply unpleasant to ride, motivation goes out the window.

This concept of an ageing population needing the young to look after them I feel is pessimistic. It's how we are now, but I think if we invest in medical research we should aim to make major breakthroughs that give us useful life until only a few weeks before death. The care requirement would be much reduced. It may be a utopian vision but I feel it's one worth pursuing, we spend a lot researching weapons technology so why not invest in the big debilitating illnesses of ageing instead. On top of this we aren't very progressive on euthanasia, a serious area that many are amenable too rather than spend years a prisoner of their illness. Our current generation who are burdening the health system with their western lifestyle illnesses, obesity/sedentary related, don't help the health budget in the least diverting money by virtue of self inflicted illness to a greater extent. The younger generation are likely to follow by example unless we re-educate them.

[bovlomov]

This concept of an ageing population needing the young to look after them I feel is pessimistic. It's how we are now, but I think if we invest in medical research we should aim to make major breakthroughs that give us useful life until only a few weeks before death. The care requirement would be much reduced. It may be a utopian vision but I feel it's one worth pursuing, we spend a lot researching weapons technology so why not invest in the big debilitating illnesses of ageing instead. On top of this we aren't very progressive on euthanasia, a serious area that many are amenable too rather than spend years a prisoner of their illness. Our current generation who are burdening the health system with their western lifestyle illnesses, obesity/sedentary related, don't help the health budget in the least diverting money by virtue of self inflicted illness to a greater extent. The younger generation are likely to follow by example unless we re-educate them.

If that's a utopian vision, how about starting with the easier things?

Many elderly people's lives are miserable for the sake of a few quid (I mean when set against weapons spending). An extra visit a day from the district nurse; another hour for the carer, and a few more practical aids at home. By the way, the management of carers and district nurses is so inefficient, I'm certain money could be saved to set against extra costs. A bit more kindness from neighbours, and a few places to sit down in the High Street wouldn't go amiss. These things don't require a scientific breakthrough, they require someone to give a damn and sign a cheque.

I don't have strong feeling against assisted dying, but I worry that it is the failure to do the above that makes euthanasia an attractive option. I'd prefer earlier and more intelligent interventions.

[kwackers]

I don't. I think it will be difficult. We will have to find alternatives to constantly drawing in the young people of other countries. But it isn't just a small number of fields. It is about twenty fields not far from my home and probably something similar near you. And it will continue like that year after year. Each new home puts one or more cars onto the roads. We can forget the cycling if this continues. Everywhere will be too busy.

Cars are self limiting. Even the most ardent car fan soon gets pee'd off with sitting in traffic.
There is no alternative to finding young people, other than breeding your own. Nobody wants to work until they die, it's a futile pointless existence. If you want to retire and enjoy your retirement then you need money underneath you or a state that will look after you. If working until you die is your idea of an "improved lifestyle" then I think you're probably on your own there.

Left to it's own devices the pressure on land is temporary. Worldwide the amount of land falling back to nature is now higher than the amount of pristine land taken (source New Scientist).
Populations are peaking, in the middle of this century they'll start falling and perhaps by then we'll have the technology to deal with ageing demographics. Currently though, we don't.

[pwa]

I don't. I think it will be difficult. We will have to find alternatives to constantly drawing in the young people of other countries. But it isn't just a small number of fields. It is about twenty fields not far from my home and probably something similar near you. And it will continue like that year after year. Each new home puts one or more cars onto the roads. We can forget the cycling if this continues. Everywhere will be too busy.

Cars are self limiting. Even the most ardent car fan soon gets pee'd off with sitting in traffic.
There is no alternative to finding young people, other than breeding your own. Nobody wants to work until they die, it's a futile pointless existence. If you want to retire and enjoy your retirement then you need money underneath you or a state that will look after you. If working until you die is your idea of an "improved lifestyle" then I think you're probably on your own there.

Left to it's own devices the pressure on land is temporary. Worldwide the amount of land falling back to nature is now higher than the amount of pristine land taken (source New Scientist).
Populations are peaking, in the middle of this century they'll start falling and perhaps by then we'll have the technology to deal with ageing demographics. Currently though, we don't.

I'm not going to pick at every point you make, but I think we need to be looking seriously at supporting our ageing population without relying on a constant flow of migrants. I'm not daft and I do know we can't suddenly turn off the tap completely, but gradually reducing the flow will encourage a search for alternative ways of doing things.

A shortage of people to do the lowest paid jobs does create problems, but it also makes life better for people doing those jobs. Locally, I know of jobs that a year ago were Minimum Wage and are now a bit above that. I also know of a Cardiff food outlet where the manager is exploitative and bullies his staff into doing dodgy things like changing use by dates on old stock, and yesterday he had a rebellion on his hands with four staff all threatening to leave at the same time. People on the bottom rung now have a bit more leverage. That means we all pay a bit more for their labour, but so we should.

[Bonefishblues]

I don't. I think it will be difficult. We will have to find alternatives to constantly drawing in the young people of other countries. But it isn't just a small number of fields. It is about twenty fields not far from my home and probably something similar near you. And it will continue like that year after year. Each new home puts one or more cars onto the roads. We can forget the cycling if this continues. Everywhere will be too busy.

Cars are self limiting. Even the most ardent car fan soon gets pee'd off with sitting in traffic.
There is no alternative to finding young people, other than breeding your own. Nobody wants to work until they die, it's a futile pointless existence. If you want to retire and enjoy your retirement then you need money underneath you or a state that will look after you. If working until you die is your idea of an "improved lifestyle" then I think you're probably on your own there.

Left to it's own devices the pressure on land is temporary. Worldwide the amount of land falling back to nature is now higher than the amount of pristine land taken (source New Scientist).
Populations are peaking, in the middle of this century they'll start falling and perhaps by then we'll have the technology to deal with ageing demographics. Currently though, we don't.

I'm not going to pick at every point you make, but I think we need to be looking seriously at supporting our ageing population without relying on a constant flow of migrants. I'm not daft and I do know we can't suddenly turn off the tap completely, but gradually reducing the flow will encourage a search for alternative ways of doing things.

A shortage of people to do the lowest paid jobs does create problems, but it also makes life better for people doing those jobs. Locally, I know of jobs that a year ago were Minimum Wage and are now a bit above that. I also know of a Cardiff food outlet where the manager is exploitative and bullies his staff into doing dodgy things like changing use by dates on old stock, and yesterday he had a rebellion on his hands with four staff all threatening to leave at the same time. People on the bottom rung now have a bit more leverage. That means we all pay a bit more for their labour, but so we should.

I'd be more reassured is I saw something that even approximated to a plan for such a radical change in the UK economy. It won't happen by osmosis, at least not for a long time, and the negative consequences may be significant in the interim. Where are the really smart people who could undertake this, and where is the political will to commission it?

[661-Pete]

I see TM has lost tonight's vote. I presume that the Tory rebels hope this means that a so-called hard brexit can now be ensured by defeating the Bill to approve the draft agreement.

That's very cynical (if I may say so - being someone with a reputation for cynicism myself)!

According to the BBC, the 'rebels' were Dominic Grieve, Heidi Allen, Ken Clarke, Jonathan Djanogly, Stephen Hammond, Sir Oliver Heald, Nicky Morgan, Bob Neill, Antoinette Sandbach, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston (against) - and John Stevenson (abstain). Hardly a bunch of hardline brex**iteers, they!

I find it ever more and more frustrating that not one single concession or gesture of conciliation, has ever been offered to the nearly 50% of us who voted to Remain. This notwithstanding that the case for Britain Remaining in the EU has become stronger than ever. At times I feel like a defendant in the dock, being told by the Judge "you have been found Not Guilty - but I'm sending you to prison anyway". What I can say is, the opposition to this wretched process will continue right up to the wire - and beyond! Much as I despise the referendum process, I now figure that only a second referendum, going the opposite way to 2016, can persuade the Government. Of course there's a risk to us in that course! I have also heard it suggested that if the Government were to fail to implement brex**it other than by the mechanism of a referendum, civil unrest/insurrection might ensue - possibly even Civil War! Such is the arrogance and belligerence of the hardline brex**iteers!

[kwackers]

I'd be more reassured is I saw something that even approximated to a plan for such a radical change in the UK economy. It won't happen by osmosis, at least not for a long time, and the negative consequences may be significant in the interim. Where are the really smart people who could undertake this, and where is the political will to commission it?

There is no plan. Brexiteering is all about kicking back against the system whilst not having a plan in place. Even pwa who is probably in the top 5% of supporters of brexit in that he seems to have an argument and principles doesn't offer a plan.
Merely the idea that if we leave it'll all come good.

The problem IMO is his problem is a single point; "immigration" and the EU is about vastly more than one point.
In my opinion out of the EU the immigration issue he thought he'd solved will still exist whilst simultaneously introducing many others not least of which is those at the bottom getting even more shafted by those at the top than they currently are.

He talks about green spaces, the EU mandates such stuff along with environmental concerns, it pays hundreds of millions to conservation efforts in the UK.
IMO out of the EU all this will quietly disappear. For conservatives, anything that's not making money is a lost cause and needs utilising. It's one of the reasons Tories love to hate the EU. They feel personally hamstrung by it.

[Bonefishblues]

I see TM has lost tonight's vote. I presume that the Tory rebels hope this means that a so-called hard brexit can now be ensured by defeating the Bill to approve the draft agreement.

That's very cynical (if I may say so - being someone with a reputation for cynicism myself)!

According to the BBC, the 'rebels' were Dominic Grieve, Heidi Allen, Ken Clarke, Jonathan Djanogly, Stephen Hammond, Sir Oliver Heald, Nicky Morgan, Bob Neill, Antoinette Sandbach, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston (against) - and John Stevenson (abstain). Hardly a bunch of hardline brex**iteers, they!

I find it ever more and more frustrating that not one single concession or gesture of conciliation, has ever been offered to the nearly 50% of us who voted to Remain. This notwithstanding that the case for Britain Remaining in the EU has become stronger than ever. At times I feel like a defendant in the dock, being told by the Judge "you have been found Not Guilty - but I'm sending you to prison anyway". What I can say is, the opposition to this wretched process will continue right up to the wire - and beyond! Much as I despise the referendum process, I now figure that only a second referendum, going the opposite way to 2016, can persuade the Government. Of course there's a risk to us in that course! I have also heard it suggested that if the Government were to fail to implement brex**it other than by the mechanism of a referendum, civil unrest/insurrection might ensue - possibly even Civil War! Such is the arrogance and belligerence of the hardline brex**iteers!

What's that old phrase (butchered by me) - Remainers needed to be lucky every time (vote), supporters of brexit needed to be lucky only once.

[PDQ Mobile]

This page, 317, of debate really is very good.
There are new ideas and concepts here that really make one think.


It is a world away from the BBC News comments!

[pwa]

Cars are self limiting. Even the most ardent car fan soon gets pee'd off with sitting in traffic.
There is no alternative to finding young people, other than breeding your own. Nobody wants to work until they die, it's a futile pointless existence. If you want to retire and enjoy your retirement then you need money underneath you or a state that will look after you. If working until you die is your idea of an "improved lifestyle" then I think you're probably on your own there.

Left to it's own devices the pressure on land is temporary. Worldwide the amount of land falling back to nature is now higher than the amount of pristine land taken (source New Scientist).
Populations are peaking, in the middle of this century they'll start falling and perhaps by then we'll have the technology to deal with ageing demographics. Currently though, we don't.

I'm not going to pick at every point you make, but I think we need to be looking seriously at supporting our ageing population without relying on a constant flow of migrants. I'm not daft and I do know we can't suddenly turn off the tap completely, but gradually reducing the flow will encourage a search for alternative ways of doing things.

A shortage of people to do the lowest paid jobs does create problems, but it also makes life better for people doing those jobs. Locally, I know of jobs that a year ago were Minimum Wage and are now a bit above that. I also know of a Cardiff food outlet where the manager is exploitative and bullies his staff into doing dodgy things like changing use by dates on old stock, and yesterday he had a rebellion on his hands with four staff all threatening to leave at the same time. People on the bottom rung now have a bit more leverage. That means we all pay a bit more for their labour, but so we should.

I'd be more reassured is I saw something that even approximated to a plan for such a radical change in the UK economy. It won't happen by osmosis, at least not for a long time, and the negative consequences may be significant in the interim. Where are the really smart people who could undertake this, and where is the political will to commission it?

A political deficit. I agree. Not just the Tories. Labour too.

[Psamathe]

....
Well firstly, I don't want to deny anyone a home, so we must continue building until our housing stock matches the number of people needing homes. But what we can and should do is put a bit of a brake on immigration so that it is better balanced with emigration. Not just in relation to the EU, of course. Every extra person needs housing. Every extra person uses the roads. A quarter of a million extra every year means an extra million every four years. That's housing roughly the equivalent of that in Cardiff we need to create every couple of years, just to stand still. We have a choice. We can learn to run the country with balanced migration, which won't be easy. Or we can give up and resign ourselves to constant rapid population increase and a reduction in the real quality of life.

But as we now see, leaving the EU won't do anything towards addressing the net numbers coming into the UK so it will completely fail to address your concerns but will damage the UK making it harder for the additional infrastructure/housing/NHS/etc.

Over 50% of immigration is from outside the EU. Countries so desperate to do trade deals with theU have explicitly stated part of any deal will be UK accepting more immigrants from their country (more immigration). Concern is net immigration and there are significant numbers of British nationals who emigrate to the EU (e.g. retire to France or Spain); and amongst those there is a fair amount of "churn" (British citizens returning to the UK).Without Freedom of Movement the British ex-pats returning to the UK will continue but emigration (e.g. retiring to France/Spain) will end again, further worsening the net figures (and impacting out lack of infrastructure/houses/NHS/etc.). etc., etc.

So we seem to have gone for a solution that sort out the problem and might even make it worse whilst damaging our economy, our standing in the world, etc.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

@PWA

You'll find no argument from me on that. There are two big, overarching systemic issues* abroad in the Land of UK and both parties are circling around them making noise, but adding no light whatsoever.

*That really quite big economic one, and the big social care thing that everyone's in agreement is quite serious, yet are simply offering platitudes...