EU Brexit thread

[fromageGB]

Breakfast? So what's wrong with croissants? And you can buy Ceylan tea anywhere. All I suggest is that you do need to take your own yellow grapefruit. The pamplemousse seems to have died out - I blame the EU.

[wank]

a lot of typically short-sighted selfish british views expressed here. some are expressing the same sort of views they chortle at when expressed by trump supporters on the news.

[onoway]

OK as for all these posts about what to do with immigrants, I assume the answer is what many call for here in the USA. Give them a path to citizenship. Give them access to drive and go to school, etc. Keep in mind we have 60 million immigrants, roughly 15 million illegals.

 

 

A few of these posts sound like some wish to build a wall or send them back or split up families.

What Johnson at least said was that immigrants were both welcome and needed in the UK but the housing, health care and education systems were already to the point of being inadequate for the people already in the UK. Therefore he wanted to see some control over who and how many more were allowed in. Since virtually all countries, certainly Canada and the U.S., have such a system in place, it's a bit odd to see this being greeted with admonishing finger wagging and cries of "racist!"

 

It's been shown that whenever population density overtakes resources that social structure breaks down and when the resources are already creaking with the (losing) effort to keep up, it makes sense to try to slow the increase which will inevitably stress those resources even more. Tell the people sleeping rough or the families relying heavily on food banks because they aren't earning enough to pay rent and buy adequate food that thousands more people are arriving to compete for housing and food and you are setting up a very bad scenario for the future.

 

The situation in the US is entirely different even aside from the obvious differences in space and population density. It's been a long time since people could pull up to an American beach and stake out their homestead, and look what happened to the locals when they welcomed and helped the immigrants instead of chasing them off! Perhaps if the native Americans had been just a little fussier about who they let in there'd have been no Trail of Tears or reservations. Perhaps California etc would even still be part of Mexico!

[mike777]

What Johnson at least said was that immigrants were both welcome and needed in the UK but the housing, health care and education systems were already to the point of being inadequate for the people already in the UK. Therefore he wanted to see some control over who and how many more were allowed in. Since virtually all countries, certainly Canada and the U.S., have such a system in place, it's a bit odd to see this being greeted with admonishing finger wagging and cries of "racist!"

 

It's been shown that whenever population density overtakes resources that social structure breaks down and when the resources are already creaking with the (losing) effort to keep up, it makes sense to try to slow the increase which will inevitably stress those resources even more. Tell the people sleeping rough or the families relying heavily on food banks because they aren't earning enough to pay rent and buy adequate food that thousands more people are arriving to compete for housing and food and you are setting up a very bad scenario for the future.

 

The situation in the US is entirely different even aside from the obvious differences in space and population density. It's been a long time since people could pull up to an American beach and stake out their homestead, and look what happened to the locals when they welcomed and helped the immigrants instead of chasing them off! Perhaps if the native Americans had been just a little fussier about who they let in there'd have been no Trail of Tears or reservations. Perhaps California etc would even still be part of Mexico!

 

 

 

They make the same arguments here in the USA, you say nothing new except you are ignorant of this debate in the usa.

 

 

As for California....think Spain not mexico...as usual Europe claims America. YOur claIM THAT IF Europe or whoever stops the trails of tears is just idiotic. It would be nice to at the very least look at history or science in your posts.

 

----

 

 

upon reflection perhaps I am too harsh...I just ask that posters look at history.

[shyams]

Interestingly the ONLY region in the whole of England and Wales that voted for remain was London. ALL the rest of the country's regions voted to leave.

 

Londoners have I suppose seen their house prices increase with all the immigration, and a good proportion of them work for financial institutions and other parasites.

 

The rest of the country has suffered, with jobs, housing, social services going to immigrants, and the EU is intent on the suffering increasing. When Cameron said he was going to make the North-East the powerhouse of England, perhaps he meant the poorhouse.

 

Scotland and northern Ireland voted to remain, but now England is leaving perhaps their independence parties will get more active.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost.

 

Today the Bank of England (the 'lies machine' according to Brexiters in the days before the referendum) slashed the 2017 projected growth rate from 2.3% down to 0.8%. Concurrently, it forecast higher inflation rates (rising to 2.0% next year). I know in a previous post I had written that I hope a downturn (if any) of the economy will be short-lived and the positive attributes of the UK economy will continue to attract investments. However, I am now beginning to doubt my own hopeful assertions. We are in for a bumpy ride; let's just hope it does not turn completely hellish.

 

If the 'Yes' voters believe the impact will be most felt by London, remember that there is a trickle-down effect of the pain. If it was bad in the North, it will only get worse. Separately, the "Londoners [who] work for financial institutions and other parasites" tend to have funds to fall back on if facing tough times. What about people in depressed regions who were already struggling and will now see their struggles only worsen?

[cherdano]

It's been shown that whenever population density overtakes resources that social structure breaks down

I am not even sure what that means - your sentence makes about as much sense to me as "whenever the value of a vulnerable slam overtakes the entry fee, then people complain about the results of appeals committees".

Could you, perhaps, explain who has shown that and where? And if so, have social structures broken down in Hong Kong?

 

But whatever your sentence is supposed to mean, it seems to assume that resources are fixed. Have you ever considered that immigrant might be paying taxes? That it might be possible construct more housing? That food can, if necessary, be imported?

 

and when the resources are already creaking with the (losing) effort to keep up, it makes sense to try to slow the increase which will inevitably stress those resources even more. Tell the people sleeping rough or the families relying heavily on food banks because they aren't earning enough to pay rent and buy adequate food that thousands more people are arriving to compete for housing and food and you are setting up a very bad scenario for the future.

[Trinidad]

What Johnson at least said was that immigrants were both welcome and needed in the UK but the housing, health care and education systems were already to the point of being inadequate for the people already in the UK. Therefore he wanted to see some control over who and how many more were allowed in.

The logic of this reasoning seems to be widely accepted (or at least you accept it), but it completely escapes me.

 

Say, I need canned tomatoes. They are welcome and needed. Unfortunately, I don't have any space on my shelves. They are filled with expired stuff and crisps that are not healthy anyway. And I don't really have the money to buy the canned tomatoes, probably due to the amounts of money I spent in the pub.

 

In that case, anybody smart would reorganize his shelves, start eating healthy at the same time, spend a little less in the pub, and work a little extra hours. Not Boris Johnson. He simply continues to say that canned tomatoes are needed and welcome while joining the people that yell: "We have too many canned tomatoes! The shelves are full!".

 

Rik

[1eyedjack]

So a Tesco home delivery van turns up on my doorstep out of the blue. Knock on door. "Hello, sir, I understand that you need some cans of tomatoes, beans, peas, and lentils. Sorry but we are out of beans, peas and lentils, but you are in luck, we have 700000 cans of tomatoes here, which you are obliged to take delivery of, if you would just sign here, per the small print in this contract that you signed 40 years ago. Short of shelf space? No problem, just rearrange your shelves and don't go out to the pub for a week or two."

 

Now, I do not regard that as being a cogent argument, but neither am I impressed by other attempts to distil a complex issue into a trite allegory of a supermarket shopping spree as some pseudo-clever proof of a point being made.

[helene_t]

Weird analogy, Rik. So we just rearrange and/or discard the least useful natives in order to make space for the immigrants?

 

No, the argument should be that migration is good for society overall. Immigrants put pressure on some resources but they also deliver new resources. And migration goes the other way also. It is possible that some countries lose - brain drain may be a problem for some countries. Not for the UK, though.

[fromageGB]

...Not Boris Johnson. He simply continues to say that canned tomatoes are needed and welcome while joining the people that yell: "We have too many canned tomatoes! The shelves are full!".

Rik

I think perhaps you may be misunderstanding. He is not saying we need more tomatoes of any type. He is saying that our shelves are full of canned pointy tomatoes, but we can always do with more of the rounded ones, that are in short supply and needed. Give us the ability to let us select which tomatoes we import. Otherwise the shelves will indeed collapse.

[mycroft]

I will add to the response from the US about "how things about immigration are different" (yeah, not really) the same thing from Canada. We've always been welcome (well, for values of "always" that start with 17xx or so, and of course the opinions of the First Nations didn't matter for some reason) to immigrants, but they'd better be the right kinds of immigrants. So during the Potato Famine, the Irish weren't welcome (except in Catholic Quebec, and there's History about assimilation even there); after Confederation through the turn of the 20th century, Chinese labourers were welcome to kill themselves building our railways, but not their families - and they'd better not be taking our jobs (ever wonder why the Chinese Laundry or "Caucasian chinese cafe" are stereotypes, or why there are Chinatowns in every major North American city?); to our continued shame (and only apologized for completely in *2015*), German Jews were turned away in 1939, to return eventually to Hamburg; after the war, effectively we welcomed any (white) Commonwealth citizen (that's how my family became Canadian), but weren't quite so happy about the P-s (as refugees from both sides of the 1952 breakup were called here, even in my day). Memories of 1939 still burned bright when Saigon fell in 1975, and while I remember people griping about "why do we have to take all of these - where's the rest of the world?", we were effectively shamed into accepting almost all the Boat People that got to our shores, which is why you can get Pho in any town with more than 1000 people, and most of us have a decent idea if a Viet name is male or female just by looking. Our memories of our treatment of the Chinese (and demonization of Communism) came back to haunt us in the years leading to the handover of Hong Kong; and while there were objections to that as well, many "holiday babies" were born in Vancouver and are now valued Canadian Citizens (and many more are still in HK, knowing they still have their safety valve if they need it).

 

Somehow the Lebanese (during that war), the Cambodians (during that war), and members of various post-colonial African nations (during their wars - the current influx is Ethiopian) managed to get in without too much fuss (as long as they lived in the "non-rich immigrant" part of town and didn't rock too many boats). Our latest "Republican Lite" PM did his best to wave the terrorist boogeyman over the Syrian refugee issue to keep hold by fear a government that even their supporters could no longer believe was the best [note: that failed spectacularly], and it's only bureaucratic inefficiencies (and that's its job, no?) that is slowing things enough that that type haven't fallen into full-blown "see? they're going to make us all dress like *that*" mode.

 

I don't know what the "right kind of" immigrant is - but I have a good guess.

[mycroft]

To be pleasant for a change: if I had to choose a "quintessentially Canadian moment", it would be the time we were driving to Ottawa and turned off the 401 for gas around Shepard. In the strip mall with the gas station, there was a lawyer's office with signage in English and Arabic...above a kosher deli.

 

On my trip to DC, I saw in the Calgary airport a woman in full hijab and veil with her children...in a restaurant full of Catholics going to conference (including at least one priest and two veiled and habitted nuns). As far as I could see, it just was.

 

Yes, the default Canadian is still a WASP (unless you're in Quebec, where she is white pure laine catholic instead); but one out of two or three will be something different - and mostly, to most people, that's not only okay, it's as it should be. That doesn't mean we should stop here, or that everything's just peachy, of course.

[Trinidad]

Weird analogy, Rik. So we just rearrange and/or discard the least useful natives in order to make space for the immigrants?

No, but Boris Johnson should stop saying "I would like to, but I can't because today I have an internal problem". Because if he would be sincere about that, he would solve that internal problem and then open the doors as soon as possible. Do you see that happening?

 

If Boris Johnson would give a rat's @$$ about the problems with housing, health care and education and solving the problems for people who are on the short end of these issues, then he might have a fair argument: "We really like you, immigrants, but now is kind of a bad time."

 

But that is not the situation. He uses internal problems as an argument why he wouldn't want to do something now, even though he normally would obviously do that. As if today's problems are abnormal. Well, they aren't. There will be new problems tomorrow:

 

He would welcome immigrants, but today, the housing is so bad. Tomorrow he will welcome the immigrants again, but the wages are already so low. And the day after tomorrow, he will welcome the immigrants again, but police are already short-handed, the government agencies are so busy, the oil price is so high, or it is raining so much.

 

So, he really says that immigrants are welcome when hell freezes over. And we are working on that... Yeah, right.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

No, but Boris Johnson should stop saying "I would like to, but I can't because today I have an internal problem". Because if he would be sincere about that, he would solve that internal problem and then open the doors as soon as possible. Do you see that happening?

 

If Boris Johnson would give a rat's @$$ about the problems with housing, health care and education and solving the problems for people who are on the short end of these issues, then he might have a fair argument: "We really like you, immigrants, but now is kind of a bad time."

 

But that is not the situation. He uses internal problems as an argument why he wouldn't want to do something now, even though he normally would obviously do that. As if today's problems are abnormal. Well, they aren't. There will be new problems tomorrow:

 

He would welcome immigrants, but today, the housing is so bad. Tomorrow he will welcome the immigrants again, but the wages are already so low. And the day after tomorrow, he will welcome the immigrants again, but police are already short-handed, the government agencies are so busy, the oil price is so high, or it is raining so much.

 

So, he really says that immigrants are welcome when hell freezes over. And we are working on that... Yeah, right.

 

Rik

 

Some of the problems such as housing in London are well nigh impossible to solve, if the politicians could in any sort of acceptable way, they could guarantee their re-election for years.

[Trinidad]

Some of the problems such as housing in London are well nigh impossible to solve, if the politicians could in any sort of acceptable way, they could guarantee their re-election for years.

You are talking about political impossibility, not technical impossibility. If something is technically possible, but politically impossible that simply means that it doesn't have political priority... The priority is defined by your "in any sort of acceptable way". Politicians decide what is acceptable. They simply think that the London housing problem is more acceptable than the cost of a solution.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

You are talking about political impossibility, not technical impossibility. If something is technically possible, but politically impossible that simply means that it doesn't have political priority... The priority is defined by your "in any sort of acceptable way". Politicians decide what is acceptable. They simply think that the London housing problem is more acceptable than the cost of a solution.

 

Rik

 

You would need confiscation of land and other things that are unacceptable in a modern democracy, that is what I meant.

[cherdano]

You would need confiscation of land and other things that are unacceptable in a modern democracy, that is what I meant.

Wrong. You would just need to give more permissions to build houses and flats.

[StevenG]

Wrong. You would just need to give more permissions to build houses and flats.

A lot of permissions have been given (not just in London). Developers then hold on to that permission without building anything at all, waiting for conditions to be favourable. It is not to their advantage if supply increases.

[Cyberyeti]

Wrong. You would just need to give more permissions to build houses and flats.

 

And schools and the extra infrastructure.

 

Also where are you going to build them ? Do we have to concrete over every bit of green ? Knock down any industry to build the houses ?

[mycroft]

What I've been reading is that there are large parts of London that are owned, but occupied N<10 weeks out of the year. Or "apartments" that are entire floors of flats that are really 5-family-sized (and also occupied a month out of the year). I'm sure that the numbers of these are miniscule compared to the demand, but I think an occupancy tax seems appropriate, if the goal is to increase occupancy. If you own a residence, and it is not occupied for X months out of the year, you owe the civic government 12-X months at the market rent for that residence.

 

It's probably a good way to "discourage" turning "homes" into "Airbnb hotels", too, if you tweak the regulations to require monthly occupancy by same people.

 

How to regulate this? Ah well, that's an exercise for the reader. It would likely require the kind of intrusiveness on the ultra-rich that...they're suggesting for the rank and file (ut of course, you shouldn't worry if you're not sufficiently brown, or chav). And the English are *famous* for exploiting loopholes in the tax laws, especially ones intended to modify behaviour.

 

Well, we'll see how Brexit falls out. It could just be that London in 2018 has a similar vacancy rate and market rent decrease to Calgary 2 years after the oil prices tanked.

[Cyberyeti]

What I've been reading is that there are large parts of London that are owned, but occupied N<10 weeks out of the year. Or "apartments" that are entire floors of flats that are really 5-family-sized (and also occupied a month out of the year). I'm sure that the numbers of these are miniscule compared to the demand, but I think an occupancy tax seems appropriate, if the goal is to increase occupancy. If you own a residence, and it is not occupied for X months out of the year, you owe the civic government that 12-X months at the market rent for that residence.

 

It's probably a good way to "discourage" turning "homes" into "Airbnb hotels", too, if you tweak the regulations to require monthly occupancy by same people.

 

How to regulate this? Ah well, that's an exercise for the reader. It would likely require the kind of intrusiveness on the ultra-rich that...they're suggesting for the rank and file (ut of course, you shouldn't worry if you're not sufficiently brown, or chav). And the English are *famous* for exploiting loopholes in the tax laws, especially ones intended to modify behaviour.

 

Well, we'll see how Brexit falls out. It could just be that London in 2018 has a similar vacancy rate and market rent decrease to Calgary 2 years after the oil prices tanked.

 

This happens in central London with the ultra-rich mainly. Russians laundering money through companies that buy them and wealthy Arabs who can decide which of the 20 such places they have round the world they wish to stay in at any given time.

[onoway]

No, but Boris Johnson should stop saying "I would like to, but I can't because today I have an internal problem". Because if he would be sincere about that, he would solve that internal problem and then open the doors as soon as possible. Do you see that happening?

 

If Boris Johnson would give a rat's @$$ about the problems with housing, health care and education and solving the problems for people who are on the short end of these issues, then he might have a fair argument: "We really like you, immigrants, but now is kind of a bad time."

 

But that is not the situation. He uses internal problems as an argument why he wouldn't want to do something now, even though he normally would obviously do that. As if today's problems are abnormal. Well, they aren't. There will be new problems tomorrow:

 

He would welcome immigrants, but today, the housing is so bad. Tomorrow he will welcome the immigrants again, but the wages are already so low. And the day after tomorrow, he will welcome the immigrants again, but police are already short-handed, the government agencies are so busy, the oil price is so high, or it is raining so much.

 

So, he really says that immigrants are welcome when hell freezes over. And we are working on that... Yeah, right.

 

Rik

well he isn't in a position to do anything about any of it so claiming to know his position on these matters is possibly a bit of a stretch.It's May who has these things to deal with now, so I suppose we'll never know for sure. But since he himself has a very varied ancestry including Turkish which he seems openly proud to acknowledge, and indeed was himself not even born in the UK although he has renounced American citizenship, I really doubt that your conclusions that he is rabidly and inflexibly anti immigrant in spite of what he says, are entirely fair or justified.

 

Nigel Farage, on the other hand, is an entirely different story, and probably all those accusations ( and worse) are perfectly fair and reasonable if levelled at him.

 

As an aside: one article which reported that Johnson was booed the first time he spoke in France, also said that later in the same speech he was cheered. Somehow that part got left out by most of the reports picking up the story.

[cherdano]

Also where are you going to build them ? Do we have to concrete over every bit of green ? Knock down any industry to build the houses ?

Have you ever been to Paris? Did you like it?

If no, I am sorry. If yes, did you know it has almost four times the population density of London?

 

 

The idea that there is no space to build housing in London has no basis in reality, only in xenophobia.

[Vampyr]

This happens in central London with the ultra-rich mainly. Russians laundering money through companies that buy them and wealthy Arabs who can decide which of the 20 such places they have round the world they wish to stay in at any given time.

 

Some European countries have various restrictions on foreigners buying properties. Size limits and requirement for indefinite leave to remain (though I think this can be purchased, time spent in the UK could also be a condition) might help loosen the housing market.

[Cyberyeti]

Have you ever been to Paris? Did you like it?

If no, I am sorry. If yes, did you know it has almost four times the population density of London?

 

 

The idea that there is no space to build housing in London has no basis in reality, only in xenophobia.

 

a) no it doesn't have 4x the population density, it depends how you define what London and Paris, but it's at worst a little over twice, and for the whole urban area about 20% higher.

 

http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm for source

 

b) I know Paris fairly well, and know more French people live in flats than do in London, particularly in the suburbs, so you can get more in the same area. Knocking houses down to build flats ain't going to happen.

 

I'm not sure, but I think they may be allowed to build higher too