I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
If you are referring to Tolhurst I think it is worth pointing out that some of us personally supported her campaign against Ukip and Reckless on the basis that it is better to show loyalty to the party and fight battles within rather than defecting. Quentin Letts has confirmed on Twitter that she spoke to her during that campaign and confirmed to him she was a Leaver. Of course most Remainers have principles and I respect them for it but Tolhurst doesn't fall into that category.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
120 million ?
Sounds about right (note I am taking R of I into account.
Incidentally with. a population of 3 million which is still far lower than it was in C19th, RoI must be in real danger of being a minority in their own land in a few decades. Probably Britons heading west lol
However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.
Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.
Your posts crack me up Roge.
Osborne is spent. He wouldn't get 100 votes in the MPs ballot.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Disaster for who?
For British citizens whose world would become encumbered by new barriers and whose opportunities would be more limited.
And the other 90% who have no intention of working in the EU?
What do you tell your children? "Bedfordshire is your oyster?"
However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.
Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.
I am on the Leave side but I would tend to agree. Every day he trots out another international independent organisation set of chums who say that we are doomed to starvation, misery and grief. He doesn't back off and he doesn't stop. His head is above the parapet and all credit to him for that.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
You just don't understand. Europeans and others will need a visa to come to the UK. But, Brits ? You must be joking. The red carpet awaits us wherever we will go.
Vote LEAVE and get our BRITISH passports back. I still have an old one somewhere with a lifetime USA Visa.
Why hasn't Nigel Farage made more of EU passports. He goes on about EU anthems and EU flags?
However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.
Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
You just don't understand. Europeans and others will need a visa to come to the UK. But, Brits ? You must be joking. The red carpet awaits us wherever we will go.
You say that as though you don't believe it.
Didn't you know the EU will GIVE YOU A GRANT to visit the EU after brexit?
Why did merkel ask for 1m turks to come to Germany last year?
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Disaster for who?
For people that might want to do it, such as myself.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Disaster for who?
For people that might want to do it, such as myself.
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
The south of England is heading for Caves of Steel territory. There are upsides to such an existence not least critical mass for all sorts of economic growth (the latest being IT) but is it the British way of life? I am not sure. I love to visit. Live there? Nah.
A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.
The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.
There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Disaster for who?
For people that might want to do it, such as myself.
Most of the people who actually want to do it would get in on a points system in any case. I suppose there might be some short term shenanigans out of pique but with declining populations self interest will prevail.
The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.
Been a busy early evening with several friends dropping by to have a natter and pick up Remain posters. I only say this because I have noticed that level of interest in people who normally keep their head down when politics is mentioned has changed and they have started to take an interest. I guess we are approaching the final 'two week' period quite soon.
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
I notice too, it's why I'm so fussy, choosy, and particular when it comes to buying the right footwear for myself.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Disaster for who?
For people that might want to do it, such as myself.
Most of the people who actually want to do it would get in on a points system in any case. I suppose there might be some short term shenanigans out of pique but with declining populations self interest will prevail.
The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.
In other words it's not your problem and you don't give a shit.
A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.
The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.
There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.
And events dear Boy events.
The one thing that could swing it for remain could be appalling behaviour by British Euro football fans.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
Back in the mid 1800s we imposed tariffs on the imports of corn so as to help UK farmers profit. Of course this did mean bread was morre expensive for the population as a whole.
Fortunately a combination of rebellious Tories and Whigs got together to repeal the Corn Laws and the price of bread went down.
Of course nowadays we are more modern - and call the Corn Laws the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.
The EU sensibly allows for transitionary arrangements for new members. If you object to the Labour government of the time not taking advantage of them, sabotaging your fellow citizens reciprocal rights is not the way to go about it.
A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.
The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.
There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.
For once, you could have won but you decided to lose. Typical Liberal.
Been a busy early evening with several friends dropping by to have a natter and pick up Remain posters. I only say this because I have noticed that level of interest in people who normally keep their head down when politics is mentioned has changed and they have started to take an interest. I guess we are approaching the final 'two week' period quite soon.
I suspect those polls may do Remain a favour and energise some of their more slothful supporters. Still turbulence to come - either result possible and whichever way it falls I suspect it will end up as being seriously close.
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
I notice too, it's why I'm so fussy, choosy, and particular when it comes to buying the right footwear for myself.
Hmm....I seem to recall that you like red shoes. I take the Henry Ford view of shoes. You can have any colour you like as long as its black.
The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.
The EU sensibly allows for transitionary arrangements for new members. If you object to the Labour government of the time not taking advantage of them, sabotaging your fellow citizens reciprocal rights is not the way to go about it.
Seven years is nowhere near enough. The transition measures need to last until the average wage and benefits differential is less than 25% or all it does is delay the inevitable a few years
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.
The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.
There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.
And events dear Boy events.
The one thing that could swing it for remain could be appalling behaviour by British Euro football fans.
Do you think that's likely? Excuse the pun, but plod is well on the ball these days. Shed loads of CCTV and very easy to issue banning orders. When was there last significant trouble? 2000 Euros?
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Disaster for who?
For people that might want to do it, such as myself.
Most of the people who actually want to do it would get in on a points system in any case. I suppose there might be some short term shenanigans out of pique but with declining populations self interest will prevail.
The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.
In other words it's not your problem and you don't give a shit.
Thats Democracy Im afraid.
I dont intend to give up the precious d.freedom that our d.forefathers died to gain from Wsterloo to Peterloo and from tbe Somme to Port Stanley just to save a few people the bother of some forms and fees if they want to go and live in France or Germany
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
It would be a disaster for somewhere around 0.2% of the population. Most of the population have no intention of working abroad; of those that do, the first choice of most is an English speaking country, i.e. (ROI excepted) somewhere outside the EU.
Far more people are affected by EU immigrants coming here.
This is a similar issue to roaming charges. Rules are made for the benefit of the tiny minority for whom travelling around Europe is commonplace, at the expense of the vast majority whom it doesn't affect and whom must bear the brunt of increased home phone charges.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.
Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.
You're absolutely right Roger. Osborne has been the model pro - sticking doggedly to his economic brief, no whizz bangs or silliness, the stolid deliverer of brutal facts. In a few months' time, when we witness Boris stumble out of yet another disastrous post-Brexit negotiation, we'll look back on Ozzy's vinegary statesmanship with a surge of nostalgia.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).
My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.
However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.
Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.
Oh Roger stick to advertising!
I would say stick to the financial industry if I didn't have a heart.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
I thought we'd passed that point long ago......
What kind of diet do you want. 0.1 hectares per person for a nutritious but entirely vegetarian diet.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Basing an economy on mass migration, rising asset prices, static productivity, and a growing trade deficit seems less than optimal.
However this parade of narcissists turns out the one politician who has enhanced their reputation is George Osborne. His cool demeanour is quite reassuring when juxtaposed with the peacock antics of Boris and co.
Even with the Tories penchant for choosing unwisely I'd be surprised if they go for anyone else (on the Remain side) least of all those who have kept their heads down like Theresa May.
You're absolutely right Roger. Osborne has been the model pro - sticking doggedly to his economic brief, no whizz bangs or silliness, the stolid deliverer of brutal facts. In a few months' time, when we witness Boris stumble out of yet another disastrous post-Brexit negotiation, we'll look back on Ozzy's vinegary statesmanship with a surge of nostalgia.
Vinegary statesmanship like cutting disability payments at the same time as announcing a corp tax cut?
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
Like most of our legislation I struggled to get to the bottom of this because there are numerous different provisions that are relevant but I struggled to find any basis for challenging the outcome of an election more than a year on.
There can still be charges of course which the police are investigating (well, it beats fighting muggers, doesn't it?) but unless the court decide to impose a disqualifying sentence on the "guilty" MP (who may or may not have had a clue what head office was spending) there will be no bye elections. Fines and lines in the sand for the next time are the worst case scenario here.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
I thought we'd passed that point long ago......
What kind of diet do you want. 0.1 hectares per person for a nutritious but entirely vegetarian diet.
With ~17 million hectares of arable land, that corresponds to a maximum population of 170 million!
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Spot on. I love the brevity of the above, but would add a slight nuance: we need to increase median wages. For a long time stagnating wages for most have been masked by rises in average wages as those at the top have done very well. I want to see a Britain where the wages of the masses increase - and historically, that has never happened at times of population increase.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
That happened about 200 years ago.
Question: food productivity depends on the amount of land turned over to agriculture. If the price of food is low, people will use agricultural land for other things: paintballing, camp sites, etc. Would you ban did imports to maximise indigenous did production? And of not, how uwould you ensure that British food production was competitive?
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Spot on. I love the brevity of the above, but would add a slight nuance: we need to increase median wages. For a long time stagnating wages for most have been masked by rises in average wages as those at the top have done very well. I want to see a Britain where the wages of the masses increase - and historically, that has never happened at times of population increase.
The most rapid wage growth was during the population boom ending in the 1970s. When wage growth ended, so did population. They weren't really connected though; contraception and the oil crisis were just co-incident.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
We are not citizens of the EU, but subjects of Her Majesty.
I will never feel a blind bit of enthusiasm for or loyalty to a european ideal that exists nowhere in reality....
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
So that's some time in the 18th century then.
Not if you include RoI and agricultural productivity increases since WW2
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).
My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.
Its a trade off and it is not clear cut. "Torching" would be silly. But the EU refused to recognise that we have a significant problem here. We speak the lingua franca of the age, we have a buoyant employment market, we have the greatest population density in southern England that you can find in Europe already and we are wide open to over 500m people.
We want and wanted a deal with the EU which restricts freedom of movement for residency and work but we also want to keep the single market benefits. If Cameron had got anything close to that I would be voting remain. But he didn't. So we need to negotiate from outside.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Spot on. I love the brevity of the above, but would add a slight nuance: we need to increase median wages. For a long time stagnating wages for most have been masked by rises in average wages as those at the top have done very well. I want to see a Britain where the wages of the masses increase - and historically, that has never happened at times of population increase.
The "significant but small" (NIESR) affect on wages, and the number of EU immigrants, shouldn't be allowed to mask the structural challenges that face the UK. We need to grow the economy, and ideally productivity gains would allow us to be more competitive on the world stage in a globalised economy, we don't seem brilliant at this, and to blame immigration is a sympton not cause error.
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
I notice too, it's why I'm so fussy, choosy, and particular when it comes to buying the right footwear for myself.
Hmm....I seem to recall that you like red shoes. I take the Henry Ford view of shoes. You can have any colour you like as long as its black.
Or as I was taught as a young man, never brown in Town, Ken Clarke famously used to wear suede shoes, probably cost him the top job.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
But a pretty impractical one. Most of us don't have the language skills to exercise such a right. It would be far more useful for far more people to have the right to live and work in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand - and I think we would be fairly happy for those rights to be reciprocal. The right to go and work in France or Italy or Romania isn't really much use to many beyond a small minority. I don't want to dismiss this out of hand, but I don't think many people can get too excited by it.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
So that's some time in the 18th century then.
Not if you include RoI and agricultural productivity increases since WW2
So, if London declared independence, would that mean the rest of the UK was ready for massive immigrant?
They will be pushing that line that there comes a time for making your mind up.
I'm surprised they're still going. I used Cheryl on a Yogurt ad years ago. She had to put a spoon in her mouth pull it out and say "it's so rich and creamy" It was supposed to be sexy but watching this creamy stuff inside her mouth when she delivered her her line made it look like something altogether more sinister. But It made for a funny shoot.
If you had to choose what would you rate as more remarkable - Trump's progress, or the state Clinton is in?
I think both eclipse Corbyn for political remarkableness. A few months ago I'd have thought I could live several lifetimes without seeing something so odd as him!
FPT: I imagine someone has made this point anyway, but the referenda polls may overestimate the change vote on the day, but there's some evidence that change gathers momentum towards the day.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).
My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.
Its a trade off and it is not clear cut. "Torching" would be silly. But the EU refused to recognise that we have a significant problem here. We speak the lingua franca of the age, we have a buoyant employment market, we have the greatest population density in southern England that you can find in Europe already and we are wide open to over 500m people.
We want and wanted a deal with the EU which restricts freedom of movement for residency and work but we also want to keep the single market benefits. If Cameron had got anything close to that I would be voting remain. But he didn't. So we need to negotiate from outside.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Basing an economy on mass migration, rising asset prices, static productivity, and a growing trade deficit seems less than optimal.
One might even call it a Ponzi scheme.
Although there is the opposite Ponzi going on in Japan right now, where am every diminishing number of workers look after an ever increasing number of retirees.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Yes. The infrastructure debate should be had. But as you know, every government for years without fail has promised 200,000 new houses per year on their watch and as you also know from the stats, the amount of social housing completions has been derisory (it has edged up recently but from a low base).
My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.
Its a trade off and it is not clear cut. "Torching" would be silly. But the EU refused to recognise that we have a significant problem here. We speak the lingua franca of the age, we have a buoyant employment market, we have the greatest population density in southern England that you can find in Europe already and we are wide open to over 500m people.
We want and wanted a deal with the EU which restricts freedom of movement for residency and work but we also want to keep the single market benefits. If Cameron had got anything close to that I would be voting remain. But he didn't. So we need to negotiate from outside.
As we saw with the Switzerland example, a deal which restricted freedom of movement was just not on the cards. It is so contrary to the EU plan that to have asked for it would have been more foolish than anything else.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
I thought we'd passed that point long ago......
What kind of diet do you want. 0.1 hectares per person for a nutritious but entirely vegetarian diet.
With ~17 million hectares of arable land, that corresponds to a maximum population of 170 million!
That .1 hectare figure is making assumptions about good water management, no soil erosion and no food waste.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Spot on. I love the brevity of the above, but would add a slight nuance: we need to increase median wages. For a long time stagnating wages for most have been masked by rises in average wages as those at the top have done very well. I want to see a Britain where the wages of the masses increase - and historically, that has never happened at times of population increase.
No, I think the black death was the last time of any significance. And even Cameron has not (yet) threatened that.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Good point. Actually, if the UK economy were weaker, like France's, there would be less immigration. And if there were fewer immigrants, you have to assume there would be some economic consequence to having a couple million fewer workers. If one believes in the "social" case against immigration, or whatever euphemism we'd like to use for not wanting foreigners about, maybe the best thing is to hope for less economic growth.
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
So immigrants, of whatever flavour, will go to the places with....a need for workers (cf @HurstLlama's quest).
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Employment is only one part of the jigsaw. We also have housing, schools, hospitals, congestion, pollution, I could go on.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
Spot on. I love the brevity of the above, but would add a slight nuance: we need to increase median wages. For a long time stagnating wages for most have been masked by rises in average wages as those at the top have done very well. I want to see a Britain where the wages of the masses increase - and historically, that has never happened at times of population increase.
The "significant but small" (NIESR) affect on wages, and the number of EU immigrants, shouldn't be allowed to mask the structural challenges that face the UK. We need to grow the economy, and ideally productivity gains would allow us to be more competitive on the world stage in a globalised economy, we don't seem brilliant at this, and to blame immigration is a sympton not cause error.
Yes, fair enough - cutting immigration is far from a magic bullet to the goal of increased productivity which we can all agree on - other things such as education, infrastructure etc are more important. I don't want to blame immigration for our economic ills. But I agree with DavidL's point that growing our economy by bringing in ever more immigrants on low wages helps no-one but those at the very top.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.
So you'd support an automatic right to settle in Belfast, but not in Dublin?
I see the idea that Remain supporters can't have principles is re-emerging onthread.
You mentioned earlier today that you thought that we were nowhere near the country's population limits, especially given technological advances etc.
I can see the force of the point you are making but I just wanted to suggest two points:-
1. Most of the migration will head for the areas of demand and growth which is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the South East. That places a lot of strain on a relatively small area and further accentuates a divide between it and much of the rest of the UK. So a figure of, say, 80 million is not equally spread out over a large country - a large part is concentrated. That concentration may well place more constraints on further growth.
2. There are large areas of the UK which are not very inhabited but (a) that may be for a good reason i.e. not much reason for anyone to want to live there; and (b) the very space/green lungs and houses with gardens which are seen as desirable become impossible save for the very few as a result of an increase in numbers. So it's not just about whether we can accommodate more but about what that means for the style of life we have, our urban and country environment, for how we live and what our idea of home is.
I was brought up for parts of my childhood in Naples - a noisy, filthy, uber-urban city with scarcely a blade of grass anywhere in the place. I loved it. But I had Ireland too and a garden in which to play and Hampstead Heath. I think that part of the concern with an increasing population is that it will change a very English view of what the ideal or desirable life is - house and garden and a bit of space. That sense of space, that desire for to have a bit of England which people can call their own is not to be dismissed lightly. Just because we can fit more and more people in does not necessarily mean we should. We ought to have the choice.
I would say we were at the population limit when the British Isles is no longer capable of food self sufficiency.
I thought we'd passed that point long ago......
What kind of diet do you want. 0.1 hectares per person for a nutritious but entirely vegetarian diet.
With ~17 million hectares of arable land, that corresponds to a maximum population of 170 million!
That .1 hectare figure is making assumptions about good water management, no soil erosion and no food waste.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
We are not citizens of the EU, but subjects of Her Majesty.
I will never feel a blind bit of enthusiasm for or loyalty to a european ideal that exists nowhere in reality....
France is Foreign, Germany is Foreign.
Austrailia is not, US is not, Ireland is not South Africa is not and to some extent even India is not.
In all those places I can land on a plane and hit the ground fully, communicate freely, understand the rules which are basically identical, even understand the subtle nuances and in all but one of those cases jump in a car and not find myself on the wrong side of tbe road.
At times I will forget that I am not in the UK.
Europe is different, interesting but very different.
If you had to choose what would you rate as more remarkable - Trump's progress, or the state Clinton is in?
I think both eclipse Corbyn for political remarkableness. A few months ago I'd have thought I could live several lifetimes without seeing something so odd as him!
FPT: I imagine someone has made this point anyway, but the referenda polls may overestimate the change vote on the day, but there's some evidence that change gathers momentum towards the day.
Clinton lost before. Trump's more remarkable.
I don't think the referendum will be typified by momentum, but a general election-type fight over turnout and the few convincables in the middle.
They will be pushing that line that there comes a time for making your mind up.
I'm surprised they're still going. I used Cheryl on a Yogurt ad years ago. She had to put a spoon in her mouth pull it out and say "it's so rich and creamy" It was supposed to be sexy but watching this creamy stuff inside her mouth when she delivered her her line made it look like something altogether more sinister. But It made for a funny shoot.
I am sure I read somewhere you had had a successful career in advertising...shooting yoghurt adverts with Cheryl Baker is certainly an interesting definition of success.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
But a pretty impractical one. Most of us don't have the language skills to exercise such a right. It would be far more useful for far more people to have the right to live and work in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand - and I think we would be fairly happy for those rights to be reciprocal. The right to go and work in France or Italy or Romania isn't really much use to many beyond a small minority. I don't want to dismiss this out of hand, but I don't think many people can get too excited by it.
Quite and one of the deep problems of the Euro. It's all well and good having the right to work in Italy, and you might be a highly qualified lawyer, accountant actor or whatever but if you can't speak Italian that right is severely limited in practice. There isn't the real free movement of labour as between Sussex and Dundee, Chicago and Alabama or Stuttgart and Leipzig.
There isn't a European "polis" despite decades of trying to will one into existence by creating Euro parliaments, passports, currencies, or regional development funds.
They will be pushing that line that there comes a time for making your mind up.
I'm surprised they're still going. I used Cheryl on a Yogurt ad years ago. She had to put a spoon in her mouth pull it out and say "it's so rich and creamy" It was supposed to be sexy but watching this creamy stuff inside her mouth when she delivered her her line made it look like something altogether more sinister. But It made for a funny shoot.
I am sure I read somewhere you had had a successful career in advertising...shooting yoghurt adverts with Cheryl Baker is certainly an interesting definition of success.
I have noted that the tie has become increasingly unpopular for London mayors. Sadiq, while undeniably a snappy dresser, is rarely seen wearing one. Boris, too, was often without neckwear. Their predecessor Ken was, by contrast, a relatively committed tie-wearer while mayor.
British politicians are appallingly dressed. British men - on the whole, to be honest. (I now expect a load of posts from TSE pointing out his exquisite taste in shoes so I will exempt him from the charge.) They can't do casual and seem wholly unacquainted with mirrors. And the suits these days are an abomination. They rarely fit and those stupid skinny suits make men look like Victorian bank clerks.
And men with long dirty fingernails should be executed, frankly. Unless they're Monty Don - and even then they should keep them short.
The suit wearers that make me wince are those who obviously went to the tailor and asked for their trousers to be made two inches too-sodding-short.
Trousers should break once, somewhere between the top of the shin and the shoe according to taste.
I agree but find that most people have trousers that are too long not too short, I have seen chaps that have paid a lot of cash for a nice suit but the trousers end with a concertina effect at the bottom end, and look awful.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
In court tomorrow. Polished shoes tonight. You are not the only one that notices.
I notice too, it's why I'm so fussy, choosy, and particular when it comes to buying the right footwear for myself.
Hmm....I seem to recall that you like red shoes. I take the Henry Ford view of shoes. You can have any colour you like as long as its black.
Or as I was taught as a young man, never brown in Town, Ken Clarke famously used to wear suede shoes, probably cost him the top job.
Can you remember the name of the spy books where the hero always wore suede shoes because he had really bad feet? Charlie something comes to mind.
Jahadi Jez will have to go some to outdo Gordon's Elvis gig / Ms Duffy incident and the Ed Stone...but having watched Vice documentary I am confident that he will manage it, ablly assisted by Seamus and the uncool gang.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.
So you'd support an automatic right to settle in Belfast, but not in Dublin?
Thats irrelevant as treaties going back to partition make us honorsry citizens of each others states with all the rights that go with it.
Thats why RoI citizens get to vote in the referendum if resident here
They will be pushing that line that there comes a time for making your mind up.
I'm surprised they're still going. I used Cheryl on a Yogurt ad years ago. She had to put a spoon in her mouth pull it out and say "it's so rich and creamy" It was supposed to be sexy but watching this creamy stuff inside her mouth when she delivered her her line made it look like something altogether more sinister. But It made for a funny shoot.
But is it the original Bucks Fizz? I seem to remember a few years back that the fella from Dollar launched a hostile takeover bid for Bucks Fizz, and for a while there were two Bucks Fizzes on the circuit simultaneously.
Decided against canvassing for Leave. Was afraid of this scenario:
Voter: Will I need a visa to travel to Europe Me: We just don't know.
Surely the answer to that is Do you need a visa to Travel to Iceland, Switzerland or Canada, No. So highly unlikely.
Travel isn't the issue. It's the right to work and live that's the concern. Try moving to the US to work without expensive lawyers like Fragomen. It would be a disaster if we had to experience anything similar to take a job in France.
Many British nationals seem to have little difficulty living and working in First World countries outside the EU. But of course, they have no unqualified right to live and work there. They are subject to immigration controls and that is right.
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
Stop thinking of the EU as 'other countries'. It is a federation whose citizens, including Brits, should consider such privileges as a birthright.
That's it. To me, they are other countries, with different traditions and interests, and I fail to see why I should have an automatic right to settle in them.
So you'd support an automatic right to settle in Belfast, but not in Dublin?
Thats irrelevant as treaties going back to partition make us honorsry citizens of each others states with all the rights that go with it.
Thats why RoI citizens get to vote in the referendum if resident here
You didn't answer my earlier question about your view on partition. Would you like to reverse it?
Comments
"Leave" way ahead in Google Trends btw.
Incidentally with. a population of 3 million which is still far lower than it was in C19th, RoI must be in real danger of being a minority in their own land in a few decades. Probably Britons heading west lol
Osborne is spent. He wouldn't get 100 votes in the MPs ballot.
And they've done a Gordon Brown, and hired an Elvis impersonator as well.
https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/738066991018311681
set of chumswho say that we are doomed to starvation, misery and grief. He doesn't back off and he doesn't stop. His head is above the parapet and all credit to him for that.Vote LEAVE and get our BRITISH passports back. I still have an old one somewhere with a lifetime USA Visa.
Why hasn't Nigel Farage made more of EU passports. He goes on about EU anthems and EU flags?
Even Germany give special preference to Ethnic Germans who live outside the EU.
You say that as though you don't believe it.
Didn't you know the EU will GIVE YOU A GRANT to visit the EU after brexit?
Why did merkel ask for 1m turks to come to Germany last year?
Stands to reason. Its all in the lisbon treaty..
Sinn Feins (Tr: Ourselves Alone) sudden conversion to Remain is rather amusing thougb.
My biggest beef is with shoes. The number of men in expensive, if ill-fitting, suits flashy shirts and silk ties but with shoes that have never been polished astonishes me. When I was in business the feet were the first place I looked when I met someone new. Very few people with dirty shoes got a job or a contract from me. It is all about attention to detail.
There was a NI poll on here earlier today - it was roughly 60: 40 Remain, maybe slightly more favourable.
I thought it closer than I'd expected, a bit like Opinium's London poll.
A sense of a catching of breath tonight, marking time between polls.
The ICM poll may not be decisive but it has changed the mood. As that rare commodity, a LD supporting LEAVER (not as rare as a UKIP supporting REMAINER), I'm also confronting the equally rare prospect of possibly being on the winning side.
There's still an eternity to go - three weeks - and if some of the polls are correct, a large number of undecided and uncertain people out there. It's far from over.
The problem comes when countries with wages a fraction of yours and no benefits get free rein.
The one thing that could swing it for remain could be appalling behaviour by British Euro football fans.
Farage election re-run ? By-elections everywhere ?
Back in the mid 1800s we imposed tariffs on the imports of corn so as to help UK farmers profit. Of course this did mean bread was morre expensive for the population as a whole.
Fortunately a combination of rebellious Tories and Whigs got together to repeal the Corn Laws and the price of bread went down.
Of course nowadays we are more modern - and call the Corn Laws the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
We have employment at a 45 year high right now, and unemployment hovering around its 30-year lows. So immigration is presumably at about the right levels as we speak.
Yet those people worried by the most recent immigration stats were I imagine also worried about them five years ago. ie, they would have been saying "but it's unsustainable" several years ago when it has transparently been sustainable: unemployment has remained low and employment high.
So I am struggling to see where the huge issue is with immigration.
Excuse the pun, but plod is well on the ball these days.
Shed loads of CCTV and very easy to issue banning orders.
When was there last significant trouble? 2000 Euros?
I certainly see no reason why I should have an unqualified right to live and work in other countries and vice versa.
The search continues for an "active shooter" and students and staff have been told to shelter in place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36429661
I dont intend to give up the precious d.freedom that our d.forefathers died to gain from Wsterloo to Peterloo and from tbe Somme to Port Stanley just to save a few people the bother of some forms and fees if they want to go and live in France or Germany
Far more people are affected by EU immigrants coming here.
This is a similar issue to roaming charges. Rules are made for the benefit of the tiny minority for whom travelling around Europe is commonplace, at the expense of the vast majority whom it doesn't affect and whom must bear the brunt of increased home phone charges.
We need to move away from an economy which grows because it employs ever more people at the living wage or whatever we want to call it. We need to squeeze the supply of labour to increase wages, drive productivity growth and make ourselves wealthier per capita. Not easy but frankly impossible when the supply of labour is infinite.
My point is, dealing with the factors you mention, houses, hospitals, etc, all of which need addressing, shouldn't be the reason to torch our relationship with the EU and leave the single market.
One might even call it a Ponzi scheme.
There can still be charges of course which the police are investigating (well, it beats fighting muggers, doesn't it?) but unless the court decide to impose a disqualifying sentence on the "guilty" MP (who may or may not have had a clue what head office was spending) there will be no bye elections. Fines and lines in the sand for the next time are the worst case scenario here.
I love the brevity of the above, but would add a slight nuance: we need to increase median wages. For a long time stagnating wages for most have been masked by rises in average wages as those at the top have done very well. I want to see a Britain where the wages of the masses increase - and historically, that has never happened at times of population increase.
Question: food productivity depends on the amount of land turned over to agriculture. If the price of food is low, people will use agricultural land for other things: paintballing, camp sites, etc. Would you ban did imports to maximise indigenous did production? And of not, how uwould you ensure that British food production was competitive?
I will never feel a blind bit of enthusiasm for or loyalty to a european ideal that exists nowhere in reality....
We want and wanted a deal with the EU which restricts freedom of movement for residency and work but we also want to keep the single market benefits. If Cameron had got anything close to that I would be voting remain. But he didn't. So we need to negotiate from outside.
You might as well include Aquitaine to fiddle the figures.
I think both eclipse Corbyn for political remarkableness. A few months ago I'd have thought I could live several lifetimes without seeing something so odd as him!
FPT: I imagine someone has made this point anyway, but the referenda polls may overestimate the change vote on the day, but there's some evidence that change gathers momentum towards the day.
Not sure who wanted it, tbf, knowing the EU.
For our current diet it's 0.5 hectares.
Austrailia is not, US is not, Ireland is not South Africa is not and to some extent even India is not.
In all those places I can land on a plane and hit the ground fully, communicate freely, understand the rules which are basically identical, even understand the subtle nuances and in all but one of those cases jump in a car and not find myself on the wrong side of tbe road.
At times I will forget that I am not in the UK.
Europe is different, interesting but very different.
I don't think the referendum will be typified by momentum, but a general election-type fight over turnout and the few convincables in the middle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7639880/Elvis-appearance-opposite-Gordon-Brown-sparks-investigation.html
There isn't a European "polis" despite decades of trying to will one into existence by creating Euro parliaments, passports, currencies, or regional development funds.
Thats why RoI citizens get to vote in the referendum if resident here