Unofficial Hexus Brexit Straw Poll - In, Out, Undecided?

[SeriousSam]

I probably should have pointed out that my comment wasn't related to "In / Out", more a general comment that increasing our population any further is just making our existing problems worse. Now as someone who doesn't have kids and won't be around in 20-30years time it's not really going to affect me. So my perspective is more a "it's an interesting thought experiment", with some rather unpleasant conclusions. Thus if you want to carry on as is, be my guest, but in the long run the people of this country will have to pay the price.

Oh and as an aside if you think Europe is going to keep it's borders open, think again. The working age population of Africa is set to increase by approximately 1Billion over the next 15-20years. Now miracles may happen and Africa sorts itself out* then this won't be a problem. However, it is more likely that they won't and a large number will look north and think "I'd like a piece of that". So once they start migrating and people really start getting "anti-immigrant" they'll have no choice but to enforce real border control.

*Though that will likely require the EU to stop shafting it royally

[TooNice]

I have had the feeling that you were taking the discussion in that direction. You've made your view about world population known in other threads, it's clearly something you are concerned about, but that's really another discussion that can easily go for pages.

In the context of the UK, the people of this country will also have a price to pay if we decide that "more people is the LAST thing we need" and take every measure to stop or reverse our population growth. We may be doing the planet a favour, but there will be a price to pay, and it's not likely to be pleasant either. It's no coincidence that every governments facing an ageing population issue takes it seriously. People may not like the idea of having to share their space with more people. Understandable. But tht is very different from being unable to support it. We are a developed country with a large economy, and a population density that is short of the top 50 in the world.

As far as I know, Europe, including the UK, never gave carte blanche for people outside the EU to legally migrate here. The only open borders to speak of are within the EU. That is not to say that non EU citizen's do not manage to get in (both legally and illegally), but short of various extreme measures/circumstances it will be the same even if you try to shut the borders.

[peterb]

I think that what is very likely is that if the UK votes to remain, the EU will see that as a green light to forge ahead with much closer integration than before, and I fully expect that if that happens, for a common economic policy to be on the agenda in the not too distant future. If something like that is implemented, that in itself would mean that MP's from other countries would be forced to take an interest in the UK and, as the UK a major player economically, not just a passing one.

And that is about as compelling reason for leaving! The Euro has not been a complete success for all the EU countries, Greece in particular, and Germany has already tried to force the economy in the direction they think is better for Greece. A Common Economic Policy would be difficult if all countries were in the Euro, but while Britain is not, it is not feasible. If Britain does leave, that will be a green light for Brussels, until some other country (perhaps Holland) objects.

Boris Johnson was not far off the mark (although the media have sensationalised certain aspects of his comments) when he said that the aim is to create a European superstate, something we fought to prevent in the with the Battle of Waterloo, and two world wars. The only difference is that they were by overt military methods, this is by covert political methods.

[SeriousSam]

It was not my intention to take the discussion in this direction, only to point out that "solving" a problem with a short term solution which then just exacerbates things in the long run isn't the smart thing to do. Now everyone from individuals to countries does it, so I'm not just pointing the finger at the UK and Europe. However, it doesn't change the fact that at some point the amount of space available for the number of people living will hit a "crunch" point. Even before that you have to ask the question about quality of life if everyone has to live in a "Mega Cities". We could also get into environmental / biological impacts, sustainability and resource loss. Suffice to say the question is never "can we now" but "should we long term".

Oh and technically the UK is number 50 in terms of population density, and if you eliminate small islands etc. we climb up to around 20.

[Galant]

And that is about as compelling reason for leaving! The Euro has not been a complete success for all the EU countries, Greece in particular, and Germany has already tried to force the economy in the direction they think is better for Greece. A Common Economic Policy would be difficult if all countries were in the Euro, but while Britain is not, it is not feasible. If Britain does leave, that will be a green light for Brussels, until some other country (perhaps Holland) objects.

Boris Johnson was not far off the mark (although the media have sensationalised certain aspects of his comments) when he said that the aim is to create a European superstate, something we fought to prevent in the with the Battle of Waterloo, and two world wars. The only difference is that they were by overt military methods, this is by covert political methods.

Per Opel's comment, closer integration is exactly the point of Europe. The whole notion of Cameron arranging a deal to avoid that is, ultimately, nonsense, or rather, whatever the voters need to hear in order to get them onboard. It might hold for a short while, but at best it's a temporary stop gap used to get the UK in. Now, that might sound like some sort of conspiracy theory except that it's precisely what happened before with the EEC and it's also the open declaration of of what the EU is about from various leaders and papers.

Even independent analysts confirm that from an economic standpoint, the only way the EU stands even a chance of working out is to get to a full single currency and much closer political union. You just can't maintain a project like the EU and the Euro with half measures. It'll fail. So it's either go the whole way and integrate everything, or drop the plan, as it is, entirely.

[pp05]

Let's address a key point in the discussion - that we will have no say.

Will ministers (that's elected parliamentarian's) have a say on directives before they are passed or not ?

[TooNice]

Even before that you have to ask the question about quality of life if everyone has to live in a "Mega Cities".

Can't speak for every country of course, but more often than not, it is people's choice to move into the cities that is creating those "mega cities". As Japan's population decreases, the population in Tokyo is rising, and I have hiked through towns in countryside, sometime for 35-50km at a time, without encountering a single soul. I didn't have to choose Tokyo, but I chose it to because the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I suppose that we are both hooked into ideals that are likely unrealisable. My ideal is a borderless world, where I can go wherever I want, live wherever I want, free from the "us" and "them". Your ideal might a world with a fraction of the population. It's not like I dislike it. With more space and more resource for everyone might, it might, while we are in this idealistic mood, lead to less fighting over resources, and the ideal of a borderless world becomes more likely.

Back to reality though, closing the borders is not going to make people disappear, or try to get in. There is the option of letting people in, taxing them and develop efficient infrastructures locals and migrants. Or we can say no to more developments, it's bad for the environments etc. But they will just switch to plan B (I'll let you use your imagination on this one), which in the long term may not even provide better for the environment etc. Not to mention that it's usually the poorer nations that have a higher birth rate, so if you are really worried about that, then the solution isn't just to ignore ageing population, but to make sure that people are too comfortable with their lives to want to make babies

Depending on the source, we are 50th or 51st in terms of population density. Not sure why would should ignore the smaller islands. Because their population is too small to matter? Doesn't make much sense to me, but if that is the case, shedding 10, 20 or even 50% of our population is still not going to make a significant dent to the world population / impact on the planet.

Anyway, I shall retire from this thread. I will still lurk now and then because.. there aren't many other discussions going round but I think that I have pretty much read all arguments, and it all comes down to how we weigh our perceptions of the various points. One way or another, I do think it is good that we get to vote on this.

[SeriousSam]

I forgot that megacities is now a term, even though for some of us it will always bring to mind the likes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit-Cit

[The Hand]

I forgot that megacities is now a term, even though for some of us it will always bring to mind the likes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit-Cit

Sorry I can't resist it..

[The Hand]

BBC News: EU exit to see house values fall, say estate agents

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36323010

To be honest, these are pretty conservative estimates, some economists are predicting drops of up to 25% in some areas and if interest rates go up this a double bonus for first time buyers, being able to save properly for a deposit as well as getting a more affordable home.

[scaryjim]

... if interest rates go up this a double bonus for first time buyers, being able to save properly for a deposit as well as getting a more affordable home.

Sorry, but the linked article is suggesting an outside-London difference between remain and exit of no greater than 1%, and prices overall continuing to rise; that's going to have negligible impact on affordability for first time buyers. Increased interest rates will have negligible impact on ability to save; they'd only benefit people who already have sufficient money to invest, and they could probably already afford their deposit. Bottom line is, based on those figure the average person will see no significant difference in their ability to buy a house regardless of whether we remain or leave.

[The Hand]

Sorry, but the linked article is suggesting an outside-London difference between remain and exit of no greater than 1%, and prices overall continuing to rise; that's going to have negligible impact on affordability for first time buyers. Increased interest rates will have negligible impact on ability to save; they'd only benefit people who already have sufficient money to invest, and they could probably already afford their deposit. Bottom line is, based on those figure the average person will see no significant difference in their ability to buy a house regardless of whether we remain or leave.

The article isn't the best one with regards to the house price predictions.

On interest rates, it depends on who you believe on the pros and cons. I'm not saying rates will rise straight away in the event of Brexit as the BoE and the Treasury are desperately trying to create inflation (some economists call this a stealth tax on the poor) so rates could remain low anyway.

There is a real desperation by the current cabal of Banks, BTL landlords, large builders and the Government to keep the debt/cheap credit bubble money train chugging along and they understandably don't want the potential upset of a rate rise caused by Brexit in this cosy relationship.
We are back in the same world of 100% mortgages, less than eight years after the Lehman Brothers crash.. madness really.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...s-remain-vote/

The above article is geared towards being another scaremongering piece from the U.S financial establishment, but there are real positives in there, such as a falling pound which will massively boost the UK's exports and economy.

Edit:
It's worth giving a quote to the above article:

It described a vote to leave as a "dangerous precedent" that would weaken the cohesion of the entire bloc.

If Britain thrived, this could encourage mainstream political parties in countries such as Sweden and Denmark to advocate an exit, Fitch said.

These Scandinavian countries, which have traditionally aligned themselves with the UK on issues such as globalisation, were unlikely to welcome a "shift" towards protectionism.

"The Netherlands might [also] not welcome such shifts," it said.

Even Fitch isn't ruling out the possibility of the UK thriving outside the EU.

[Galant]

For those looking for a really simple way to decide how to vote, could this be it...?

Question - Do you think that getting to vote in a referendum on the EU in or out is a good thing?

If Yes - vote leave.
If No - vote remain.

[Splash]

For those looking for a really simple way to decide how to vote, could this be it...?

Question - Do you think that getting to vote in a referendum on the EU in or out is a good thing?

If Yes - vote leave.
If No - vote remain.

How about those that think it's a good thing to be able to vote in the referendum, but plan to vote "remain"?

[SeriousSam]

How about those that think it's a good thing to be able to vote in the referendum, but plan to vote "remain"?

I may be reading too much between the lines, but I think Galant's point is as follows; If leaving the EU would be as apocalyptic as presented by the government remain camp, then why one earth would they let a population who picked "Boaty McBoatface" vote on the matter... clearly we can't be trusted to make sensible decisions

[opel80uk]

I may be reading too much between the lines, but I think Galant's point is as follows; If leaving the EU would be as apocalyptic as presented by the government remain camp, then why one earth would they let a population who picked "Boaty McBoatface" vote on the matter... clearly we can't be trusted to make sensible decisions

Let's be honest, the Tory leadership would never have offered the referendum if they were not worried about UKIP eating into their votes. Couple that with the polls saying that they might not even win a majority, and their hands were tied.