OVLOV JAY:
Oh no, now the Chinese won’t sell us goods either. June 24th will be like an episode of lost. Everyone will be out of work and starving, praying to come back like a cheating ex. “We didn’t mean it Angie, please give us another chance”. We’ll all be eating immigrants and drinking our own ■■■■, trying to survive until we can hijack the first load of kangaroo meat sent from the commonwealth. But the mad max style behaviour will serve as good training for when Angie sends the jack boots in to rename is West Germany. Quick, grab the postie and change your votes lads
Oh wait it gets worse.The lost imports will mean that we’ll have to employ our own workers to do stuff and wages will increase because the flow of immigrant labour will be cut.Oh no the Leave Group have changed sides and are now supporting Cameron again but Corbyn has now lost the plot entirely declaring Labour as neutral.
OVLOV JAY:
Oh no, now the Chinese won’t sell us goods either. June 24th will be like an episode of lost. Everyone will be out of work and starving, praying to come back like a cheating ex. “We didn’t mean it Angie, please give us another chance”. We’ll all be eating immigrants and drinking our own ■■■■, trying to survive until we can hijack the first load of kangaroo meat sent from the commonwealth. But the mad max style behaviour will serve as good training for when Angie sends the jack boots in to rename is West Germany. Quick, grab the postie and change your votes lads
Oh wait it gets worse.The lost imports will mean that we’ll have to employ our own workers to do stuff and wages will increase because the flow of immigrant labour will be cut.Oh no the Leave Group have changed sides and are now supporting Cameron again but Corbyn has now lost the plot entirely declaring Labour as neutral.
carry on lads this is brill.
The scare scenario’s just get funnier.
OVLOV JAY:
Feel free to post a link to the impartial source that states that
Thousands of pages have been written about the cost of leaving the EU, zero pages have been written about the financial upside to a Brexit.
Take your head out of the sand and have a read. Don’t let yourself become an easy target to what some of these muppets on the leave side are using to brainwash you into a feeling that Brexit will be a Valhalla.
Thousands of pages all written by the same bunch of Europhile zb’s that have shafted the country since 1973.
That is thousands more than you lot have published, the grand total of the Brexiters is zero. You lot can’t even find a left leaning communist to publish a paper on how financially beneficial a Brexit would be.
Of course all the facts of the remain campaign are lies and rubbish. What kind of fools do you think we are?
Stop tapping into the fear of those that think immigrants are to blame for everything and actually debate the facts.
Here is another undisputed fact for you, wages in the UK have more than doubled since 1973, adjusted for inflation. Of course that is another fact you won’t like.
Words of common sense at last!
The pound is already falling due to the uncertainty of the outcome. If the vote IS to go, it won’t happen overnight - it will take AT LEAST two years. During that time, the pound will continue to fall - imports will become more expensive, but so will exports! Manufacturing will suffer, so will transport. Due to the cuts, many (including drivers) will lose their jobs. Many British farmers have already given up because they find it difficult to make ends meet; when the EU farming subsidies cease, the remainder will have to pack up. Due to the increased costs, the cost of living will rise dramatically.
You will have won one battle, however - immigration will fall - because there will be nowt in the UK for them to come to! Then again, there will be nowt for the Brits, either!
Sounds a little drastic, perhaps - but a ■■■■ site closer to reality than most of the exiters would like to admit!
Isn’t all the talk by Cameron etc of economic meltdown a kind of self fulfilling scenario.
If enough investors are told enough times that catastrophe awaits then clearly they will not invest, thus fulfilling the initial claim.
Ste46:
Words of common sense at last!
The pound is already falling due to the uncertainty of the outcome. If the vote IS to go, it won’t happen overnight - it will take AT LEAST two years. During that time, the pound will continue to fall - imports will become more expensive, but so will exports! Manufacturing will suffer, so will transport. Due to the cuts, many (including drivers) will lose their jobs. Many British farmers have already given up because they find it difficult to make ends meet; when the EU farming subsidies cease, the remainder will have to pack up. Due to the increased costs, the cost of living will rise dramatically.
You will have won one battle, however - immigration will fall - because there will be nowt in the UK for them to come to! Then again, there will be nowt for the Brits, either!
Sounds a little drastic, perhaps - but a ■■■■ site closer to reality than most of the exiters would like to admit!
Steve
If the value of the pound is dependent on EU membership feel free to explain how the Pound was worth 2.7 Swiss Francs in 1969.
Or why is it worth 1.28 Euros if the EU is the more important economy.
A lower pound actually means cheaper UK exports from the point of view of the customer.
While if we’d have listened to the Europhiles we’d have joined the Euro.Good luck with that.
del949:
Isn’t all the talk by Cameron etc of economic meltdown a kind of self fulfilling scenario.
If enough investors are told enough times that catastrophe awaits then clearly they will not invest, thus fulfilling the initial claim.
The truth is they are zb scared of Germany being left to prop up the Euro project on its own.As we all know the banks are more exposed to German investments than British ones.IE this is all about Germany and keeping Germany at the top of the zb pile just as it was in 1973.
OVLOV JAY:
13% of our gdp relies on eu trade. That’s not enough to make a noticeable difference to anyone’s weekly shop. The scaremongering of financial apocalypse is comical, mostly fuelled by those with a vested financial interest in remain
If a brexit would cause the kind of armageddon been spoken here do you really think they would let us plebs vote on it■■?
The leave campaign can’t say this will be what will happen as it is a leap in to the unknown.
Alex Samond told the Scots they would be making a fortune from oil revenue if they voted to leave the union and if they had listened to him things wouldn’t of gone to plan as the price of crude plumeted shortly after.
The pound has fallen with the brexit campaigns surge in the polls the same as it did when Boris joined the out campaign.
The reason for this is the city hates uncertainty. Whatever way the vote goes life has to go on.
In the south east a bursting of the housing bubble would be no bad thing.
OVLOV JAY:
13% of our gdp relies on eu trade. That’s not enough to make a noticeable difference to anyone’s weekly shop. The scaremongering of financial apocalypse is comical, mostly fuelled by those with a vested financial interest in remain
To be fair that’s a more credible scary threat.Although I’m more worried about Merkel’s Martian allies and their panzers.By all accounts that was how she got the Greeks to pay up.
Carryfast:
If you really think that 65,000,000 on a small Island isn’t enough then exactly how many do want.
I don’t want any number. What is the benchmark for population density anyway? We aren’t as densely populated as Japan, as an example of another island, or Belgium which is otherwise located on a large continent. Are you already avoiding visiting town because you feel people are packed in like sardines?
As for your bs Socialist equating of wealthy with countryside or that demographics aren’t altered by immigration suggest you check out the fate of Middlesex among other over developed immigrant ghettoes which is the logical conclusion of your ideas.
On that note it’s the countryside that feeds you not housing estates.While if you really must turn what remains of the country into Baghdad or Islamabad then do it in Scotland where no doubt Sturgeon will welcome it with open arms.
What are you on, really? Can you understand that there is a middle ground between concreting every piece of wilderness and acknowledging that we aren’t even remotely short of land?
Carryfast:
If we double the ‘minimum wage’ they won’t be able to under cut the wage level.What will happpen is that they’ll flood into the country in even greater numbers to take advantage of the higher wage.
But how will they get the wage without a job which pays it?
Why would an employer generally prefer to hire a migrant than a settled worker, if the wage, the conditions, and the effort the employer extracts are all the same? And if he’s paying good money at which settled workers are abundantly available, why take a chance on someone with foreign training and an uncheckable background?
No change but the people who are allowed to come to this country will be those that are needed and not the dregs of Europe .We do not need foreign big issue sellers in the north east thank you.Wheelnut when partner and I started out 1972 only me a lowly truck driver went out to work we borrowed 2 .5 times my yearly earnings that bought us a semi after a few years we bought a detached all on one wage with a couple of kids,. try doing that now no chance unless a gov gimmick is used.A t the minute there is an unbalance of men getting to this country loads of them it is not on quite a number have no respect for females ,we do not know how old they are for certain many claim to be young but wait till pension time comes they will and they will claim to be old…the only way is OUT OUT…Where on earth were these experts who say stay in 2008 Me a daft truck driver saw that coming (buy house £150000, £100 deposit move borrow the lot) WHY DID NOT ONE OF THE EXPERTS SAY AY UP To busy drinking .They say leave will cost us £3500 per family by 2030 well camron cost my partner £6500 PER YEAR when they changed pension age for women some were only months away from pension age so over the 5 years they can not claim that is £30000 odd thousand eu dont make me laugh bunch free loaders and yes the welsh wind bag and family his dog cat and budgie are right in europe trough.
Anyone banging on about wanting to get rid of Cameron as PM who does not seize this opportunity to bring him down, and force an election - needs their head looking at.
If the Tories survive until 2020 - their best chance of being re-elected yet again IS that election in 2020. An election this year has the two main parties a lot closer together.
If nothing else, even losing Remainers (should Brexit win) - are going to be some of the Conservatives/Libdems/Blairites - voting for Corbyn’s Labour.
The Referendum vote then should NOT be biased according to party politics.
Rjan:
Why would an employer generally prefer to hire a migrant than a settled worker, if the wage, the conditions, and the effort the employer extracts are all the same?
Because migrant workers, especially migrant HGV drivers, do not generally have settled homes, families etc in the UK, and therefore do not care how much work encroaches into their life. I spoke to a bloke a few years ago who employed predominantly eastern Europeans, and he said “They’re great, I drive past my yard on Sunday morning and they’re all there polishing the trucks”. By contrast, the “feckless Brits” tend to prefer seeing their partners, children etc on a Sunday morning.
Carryfast:
If you really think that 65,000,000 on a small Island isn’t enough then exactly how many do want.
I don’t want any number. What is the benchmark for population density anyway? We aren’t as densely populated as Japan, as an example of another island, or Belgium which is otherwise located on a large continent. Are you already avoiding visiting town because you feel people are packed in like sardines?
As for your bs Socialist equating of wealthy with countryside or that demographics aren’t altered by immigration suggest you check out the fate of Middlesex among other over developed immigrant ghettoes which is the logical conclusion of your ideas.
On that note it’s the countryside that feeds you not housing estates.While if you really must turn what remains of the country into Baghdad or Islamabad then do it in Scotland where no doubt Sturgeon will welcome it with open arms.
What are you on, really? Can you understand that there is a middle ground between concreting every piece of wilderness and acknowledging that we aren’t even remotely short of land?
It would be interesting to find out exactly ‘what’ is your motivation for wanting so many immigrants added to our population to feed, to house and to keep healthy.Let alone any so called advantage in lumbering us with yet more of the world’s population.Including the issue of demographics and human nature issue of eventual calls for self determination.
Feel free to explain what and where is the definition of middle ground between Middlesex v most of Scotland.On that note I’m guessing that while the so called Scottish Nationalists,really Socialists,can talk the talk they won’t want to take your intended influx.So tell us how many and where are you going to put them and why.
As for ‘avoiding’ towns will already having moved twice from London’s never ending encroachment into Surrey,because I don’t want to live in an over developed urban zb hole and an ever increasingly immigrant dominated demographic,count.
Rjan:
Why would an employer generally prefer to hire a migrant than a settled worker, if the wage, the conditions, and the effort the employer extracts are all the same?
Because migrant workers, especially migrant HGV drivers, do not generally have settled homes, families etc in the UK, and therefore do not care how much work encroaches into their life. I spoke to a bloke a few years ago who employed predominantly eastern Europeans, and he said “They’re great, I drive past my yard on Sunday morning and they’re all there polishing the trucks”. By contrast, the “feckless Brits” tend to prefer seeing their partners, children etc on a Sunday morning.
You can add to that the issue that over supplying the labour market keeps wage levels lower than they would otherwise be.In which case it’s obvious if the employers don’t then employ the immigrant labour when it’s here that would defeat the object by reducing the attraction and thereby reducing the increased supply.
The country’s not full because of land mass argument is ■■■■■■■■. By that token China isn’t over populated. People don’t live in tree houses and the majority of kids aren’t home schooled. Nobody is doing John Rambo style medical care in the forest. Population is governed by infrastructure, and ours is stretched to the limits
Rjan:
Why would an employer generally prefer to hire a migrant than a settled worker, if the wage, the conditions, and the effort the employer extracts are all the same?
Because migrant workers, especially migrant HGV drivers, do not generally have settled homes, families etc in the UK, and therefore do not care how much work encroaches into their life. I spoke to a bloke a few years ago who employed predominantly eastern Europeans, and he said “They’re great, I drive past my yard on Sunday morning and they’re all there polishing the trucks”. By contrast, the “feckless Brits” tend to prefer seeing their partners, children etc on a Sunday morning.
But aren’t you just identifying an incarnation of the “effort the employer extracts”, and proving my point that every supposed advantage the immigrant has arises from undercutting the wage/work bargain that settled workers find acceptable?
I’ll bet you the employer in your case wouldn’t be laughing if he was having to pay £25 an hour for those trucks to be polished on a Sunday morning.
As I’ve said, it might seem like a grave difficulty to regulate wages (although it was done quite practicably in the near past), but it’s not any more difficult than regulating the movement of labour and it attacks at the root the problem that most settled workers have with immigration (i.e. undercutting) without preventing employers from drawing in workers to meet real shortages and without imposing any restrictions on the movement of workers (except that they are prohibited from displacing existing settled workers from jobs by undercutting their wages).
Carryfast:
It would be interesting to find out exactly ‘what’ is your motivation for wanting so many immigrants added to our population to feed, to house and to keep healthy.
You make it sound like our society makes a loss on every human life it hosts, that every worker (presumably regardless of whether they are settled or migrant) imposes a grievous loss on the public ■■■■■. And having asserted that, you imply I want to make it up for those losses with additional volume.
But the fact is that hosting human life is not a loss-making activity - it is actually a grandly profitable activity.
Despite the economics making sense, I don’t want so much immigration that our civilisation is simply overwashed and our social fabric left tattered, but I want enough movement that our culture is enriched by ideas and developments from around the world, that the frontiers of the socially liberal world are expanded, and some means by which dangerous geographic inequalities are dissipated and neutralised.
I also don’t discount the advantage of migration that some people are gently dislodged from the vicious narrow-minded rut that can arise from a limited range of cultural exposure. A good ten years of free movement in the EU we can thank for the fact that very few youths hold any of the absurd prejudices about, or callous lack of concern toward, Eastern European workers that some of the older generation do, and for some time to come this will be a partial prophylactic against the attraction of the far-right whilst easing further political integration and democratic cooperation across Europe (assuming of course that the EU, as well as national governments, start to become more democratically responsive).
Let alone any so called advantage in lumbering us with yet more of the world’s population.Including the issue of demographics and human nature issue of eventual calls for self determination.
Ah, back to your incoherent nonsense about “self-determination”. And no doubt you’d have some Malthusian account of “human nature” to boot, if I cared to enquire into it any further.
Rjan:
But aren’t you just identifying an incarnation of the “effort the employer extracts”, and proving my point that every supposed advantage the immigrant has arises from undercutting the wage/work bargain that settled workers find acceptable?
I’ll bet you the employer in your case wouldn’t be laughing if he was having to pay £25 an hour for those trucks to be polished on a Sunday morning.
As I’ve said, it might seem like a grave difficulty to regulate wages (although it was done quite practicably in the near past), but it’s not any more difficult than regulating the movement of labour and it attacks at the root the problem that most settled workers have with immigration (i.e. undercutting) without preventing employers from drawing in workers to meet real shortages and without imposing any restrictions on the movement of workers (except that they are prohibited from displacing existing settled workers from jobs by undercutting their wages).
Firstly we know that the immigrants are coming here because incomes/living standards are better,or perceived as being better,than in their own countries.In which case increasing wages without closing the door will just create an even bigger attraction and corresponding increase in the levels of immigration.On that note they aren’t under cutting the minimum wage because they can’t.What they are doing is adding to the labour supply thereby holding the minimum wage/wages in general to an artificially low level.While your idea would obviously result in us being swamped by more immigrants.In which case the answer is close the door thereby creating an economic environment in which wages will rise by by both market forces and making a higher minimum wage sustainable.
Which leaves the question what is your actual agenda.In calling for open door immigration together with increasing the economic attraction for immigrants even more.Which can obviously only result in more immigrants trying to come here.
While ‘if’ you’re actually saying use a massively higher minimum wage to reduce the motivation for employers to import immigrant labour.Then what’s the problem of doing that together with closing the door.
Somehow I’m guessing your intention is the former of those.
