>Money isn't the only thing in life.

Disclaimer - I'm not trying to be hateful.

That seems like a completely nonsense, garbage statement. Brexit is primarily about money and economics, from what I can tell on the outside looking in.

So what was your purpose in writing that?

It sounds like his point is that even if there are fewer big banks, he might be able to buy/rent an apartment in more desirable areas of the city.

I interpret his comment as pointing out a value to intangibles that are sometimes overlooked when viewing the country through a broad economic lens.

The people who will be hurt the most would be those who are at the bottom of the proverbial food chain to begin with. Desirable areas will still be expensive because people on high income or positions of power will still hold those positions. It's the lower / under paid workers who will see pay freezes and lay offs while the cost of living will continue to rise.

Instead of levelling the playing field, I expect the brexit will just create an even bigger divide between the wealthy and the poor.

> It's the lower / under paid workers who will see pay freezes and lay offs while the cost of living will continue to rise.

But doesn't mass immigration also hurt those at the bottom? It's not the well off that are facing competition for jobs, housing etc. is it?

Every time someone tries to prove this by doing an unbiased economic investigation, it concludes that the negative effect is either nonexistent or tiny.

Housing competition is fundamentally local - everyone in the world wants London property, regardless of living there. Nobody wants houses in Stoke on Trent.

> Every time someone tries to prove this by doing an unbiased economic investigation, it concludes that the negative effect is either nonexistent or tiny.

That's a pretty bold assertion, not what a quick google reflects

Care to share the results of your quick search please?

The onus is on the person that makes the bold assertion to back it up, not on me to back up my challenge. But I'm getting used to the brigading now.

I agree the former poster made a claim of evidence that should be backed up, but you did the same as well. Thus you’re both just as responsible to cite a source when asked.

It's not about who is responsible. If I had evidence to back my claim up, regardless of who made the initial assertion, I'm going to.

My guess is that neither can find anything with a quick google search and are just hoping that this thread dies.

Incorrect. If I thought earlier posters were intent on engaging sincerely I would continue, but evidence here and previously suggests they are employing derailing tactics masquerading as reasonable argument.

You're incorrect. Regardless of their reason, it does not derail an argument for you to provide sources. It bolsters your case.

Refusing to provide citations makes it seem like you have something to hide, regardless of the others' intention.

From following the debate on Brexit, I think it was rather (rightly or wrongly) primarily about EU immigration.

no, Brexit is not about economics and it never was.

Brexit is about having fewer immigrants in the country.

My driving instructor was very honest with me, even if I was a foreigner. He said 50% of his students are foreigners. But he still voted for Brexit even if he knows it will make him worse off financially. He just wants fewer immigrants in the country.

I grew up in a predominantly "brown people" part of the country, I use "brown people" because there were Pakistani's, Indians and other peoples from the crown colonies.

It's worth noting that, we as a country fail to integrate those people. It's not their fault.

It's worth double-noting, that those people are not the people we're removing ourselves from. We're actually removing ourselves from those who are culturally similar enough to integrate independently.

Immigration is /going/ to happen, it's a net positive for the country, in fact it's required to sustain the country. You've just ensured that it's the "brown people" who get imported.

--

Please bear in mind, I have no ill-will to anyone from those countries, but when people argue against immigration it's almost always because of the polish (which was hugely self-inflicted) or "brown people". The majority of leavers I know don't expect this outcome, they think it'll be a net decline in all immigration (including those from India, Pakistan etc;)

> it's required to sustain the country

because? If it's because we aren't fertile enough, or our education system isn't good enough, or we aren't paying enough for certain jobs, why not address this?

I'm interested to know whether you think there should be any upper limit to the population of the UK: 100m? 500m? more?

Because we have an aging population, and pensions are the single largest government expense. (more than double the NHS, which is also heavily burdened by our aging populaton)

So then why not encourage the population to breed, rather than sourcing our fertility abroad?!

Because forcing people to breed isn't exactly an efficient tool.

Also - a population highly burdened with a lot of children tends to produce less value. It keeps more people out of work.

So let me get this straight: your position is that an ageing population can only be solved by migration?

Or killing of the old. Or forced breeding.

Migration is the most ethical of those.

For many people it was about regaining control of borders and reducing immigration. Personally I'm willing to trade off being a little poorer in exchange for being a sovereign nation once again, although the current direction of travel makes it look like we will be getting Brino i.e. Brexit in name only, about which by the way I'm staggered at how blithely people are willing to discard democracy when the result doesn't go their way.

> sovereign nation once again

As a Canadian (and I imagine citizen of pretty much any non-european commonwealth country) I had to chuckle a bit. After being treated like a resource-extraction milking machine historically and then maintaining this pseudo-ceremonial allegiance to a royal head of state it seems funny for someone from the mothership to bemoan a loss of sovereignty and self-determination.

No ill-will intended, just struck me as humorous in what is in all other regards a very humorless situation...

I'm basically a small c conservative, and I think the country is a far less pleasant place to live than when I grew up. If we want mass immigration we also need a massive house building programme, which might involve concreting over the countryside, or perhaps a proper regional policy. I don't see how we can have one without the other. If we were as big as Canada it would be a different story!

I went to the beach with the dog on New Year's day - there were thousands of other people, the roads were clogged, and it spoiled the experience. Buying in the countryside is often not an option depending on your career, because many jobs are only available in the South East, hence you are forced to live in a hyper-competitive area, fighting it out with millions of others for your tiny slice of England.

I'm just trying to explain that my reasons for wanting lower immigration have nothing to do with xenophobia, and everything to do with the realities of life in the SE UK. Injecting millions more people is going to make it a massive miserable conurbation, in my view.

It's a little more nuanced than that ... the SE of England was generally the area most in favour of Remain. Pretty much all of rural England outside of the pull of London voted to Leave.

I see Brexit as the losers in the globalization push taking their revenge on the winners.

Sure, I realise I'm something of an anomaly in my views. Something of a tangent I know, but I can't even walk to my local shop without being choked by diesel pollution, and this in a not particularly large southern town. Is this supposed to be progress?

Regaining control of our borders? Have you ever been to a UK border?

We’re not in Shengen. You can’t just stroll across.

This trope about discarding democracy is tired too. A democracy isn’t “choose once and keep forever”. We are free to change our minds. Or are you surprised that we have general elections every so often?

> This trope about discarding democracy is tired too

Imagine the contempt with which calls for a second referendum would be treated if it were remain that had won. Not to mention, we were told that the vote would settle the issue for a generation. Oh whoops, apparently only if we voted remain!

But that was exactly Farage’s plan.

How did you miss this?

Yes but I seriously doubt it would have gone anywhere.

> regaining control of borders

What does this actually mean specifically? What policy changes do you want that you think you can't have within the EU?

> sovereign nation once again

The UK is sovereign. It's just made some international agreements to align with other countries. If you think the EU is bad for this, wait until you see things like TTIP: all of the legislative override, ability to sue the state in foreign courts etc, and none of the democracy.

A points based immigration policy would be a nice start.

> The UK is sovereign. It's just made some international agreements to align with other countries. If you think the EU is bad for this, wait until you see things like TTIP: all of the legislative override, ability to sue the state in foreign courts etc, and none of the democracy.

One wonders how those poor impoverished nations outside of the big trading blocs survive!

> A points based immigration policy would be a nice start.

How aware are you of the current UK visa tier system? What kinds of people do you think are currently immigrating that would not be eligible under a points based system?

>One wonders how those poor impoverished nations outside of the big trading blocs survive!

Generally they are poor and impoverished, yes. Or they have a deal with the EU and US. Or are tiny exceptions like Singapore.

> Generally they are poor and impoverished, yes. Or they have a deal with the EU and US. Or are tiny exceptions like Singapore.

This idea that the UK is inevitably doomed outside of the EU is such a canard - fact is, it cannot be known either way until it happens.

Of course it's not doomed. But your position on "too much immigrants" is xenophobic, regardless of how you see it.

You're literally ignoring the fact, that most congestion in London and S/E England is due to internal migration. You're blaming EU migrants for your discomfort, the ones that are most likely to work for a bit and go back to their countries.

EU immigration certainly doesn't help. Also please don't throw insults around without foundation, which I see that you've been able to do with impunity, which says something about this forum.

is Canada not a sovereign nation because it is part of NAFTA?

Not to defend GP's post, but NAFTA and EU are vastly different. Without proper visas, I cannot settle in Canada, I cannot work in Canada, I cannot vacation for longer than 6 months in Canada.

I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to. I think it would be nice to move freely between the NAFTA nations.

Free Trade is a shitty thing, without labour migration.

As in - if Carrier moved their A/C to Mexico, then some people could move with it... reducing the impact on the community.

Yeah! English passports will be blue again, like God intended.

"God knew why he put the island monkeys on an island, but he did not expect them to build ships" German saying.

If money isn't the only thing in life... Then why are you pointing out London's house prices? Surely you can buy a house near Derry or Cardiff.

I'll add another quote, only the sun shines for free ( Belgian quote)

And even then we put a price on it.

Even leaving the EU alone, results in the UK setting up their own GPS alternative. That's a huge cost to bear alone

> UK setting up their own GPS alternative

The only reason this is possible is due to UK leadership in the area, so it's actually a brilliant opportunity for the UK to remain at the leading edge.

And I thought they had to, because they weren't allowed to have the military part of Galileo. Which makes the UK the only country without access to high precision GPS.

They had no success negotiation access to Galileo, so they are forced door a Homebrew alternative.

America is the leader with GPS, last time I checked.

To be honest, a lot of your comments lack realism and objective references. I'm 100% sure you live in the UK

Having done a lot of the work here there is considerable expertise in the UK, thus it will be far cheaper for the UK to go it alone than would otherwise be the case.

'SSTL was selected to supply the navigational payloads for the first 14 Galileo Full Operational Capability satellites, in partnership with prime contractor OHB System AG of Germany, in January 2010. In 2012, the OHB-SSTL partnership was awarded a second contract to supply a further 8 spacecraft for the programme and earlier this year the Batch 3 contract was again awarded to the OHB-SSTL partnership.'

Source: https://www.sstl.co.uk/media-hub/latest-news/2017/sstl-celeb...

> To be honest, a lot of your comments lack realism and objective references. I'm 100% sure you live in the UK

:)

Realism:

It's logical that the UK was involved when they were a EU member ( through partnerships as your opinionated source mentions).

1) It doesn't mean they are a leader ( as you mentioned).

2) It doesn't mean they have the expertise to set everything up ( which they didn't want to, since they tried negotiating for military access to Galileo)

3) It's not going to be cheaper now. They already spent 2,1 billion pounds when they were in the EU.

:)

Edit: can't reply anymore, but I do agree that I don't work in that sector and I don't know those companies.

It would surprise me that there is no ( current) EU-member alternative for the work that SSTL had done.

Edit 2: the current owner of SSTL is EADS ( Airbus). Which has it headquarters in France. SSTL is founded in the UK though.

Edit 3: Inmarsat History is synical in your statement that the UK is better off alone with brexit. Since it's origin is because of international cooperation

:)

Deary me! I don't think anyone serious in the satellite business would argue that SSTL are anything but a world leader in some aspects. Apart from that there's also Inmarsat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmarsat

The UK also has world leading Geomatics capabilities. I work in this sector.

I think one of the positive factors for the UK as regards Galileo is that technology has advanced hugely since Galileo's inception, thus a new UK system can be superior and far cheaper, hence the confidence behind the idea.

More evidence of UK leadership: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46825269

'UK engineers have completed the build of the novel Quantum satellite.

The telecommunications platform will be the first fully software-defined spacecraft. '