LondonMix

Yes but it would have to be based on new information or arguments I hadn't already heard. That's why I asked you what you thought I had wrong. I am genuinely interested. The time it takes to negotiate a trade agreement is long. Looking at all past trade deals, its clear its a question of years not weeks or months. Both the EU and the US have come out and explicitly said that it will take at least 5-10 years. While some may argue that statement is politically motivated, the new EU deal with Canada took 5 years and its still not fully implemented so that's a fairly clear indication of the complexities and time frames involved. Rook Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry London Mix- wasnt trying to "light the > firework and stand well back", but I do have a > fair amount of battle fatigue now when it comes to > people introducing "facts". I think the key issue > for the referendum- and a key source of confusion > for many - has not necessarily been the facts > themselves but the interpretation of them. Your > post contained some facts but alot of what you > have written is purely circumstantial > > eg "?The time it will take it renegotiate trade > deals with each of these countries should not be > underestimated. Also, without the scale of the EU > trading block as a prize, the UK will certainly > get a worse deal with those 50 countries than is > currently the case". > > I could genuinely write a full page on each and > every point you have made but Im cautious to get > drawn into that as I dont want to come across as > preaching. Im very keen that people do not swallow > "facts" when they are not thats all. > > Reading your posts I think a good question for you > (and all of us actually) is whether you are still > open to changing your mind? Can you even imagine > changing your mind and voting Leave irrespective > of any counter argument you might hear?

Otta, his grand-dad was Turkish and he's always been a huge advocate for Turkey joining the EU (which is very unlikely to happen for about 30 reasons). Rook, why don't you specifically say what you think I've got wrong. I'd be interested to know.

Anti-immigrant feeling (which overlaps at least partially with Euro-Skepticism) is often highest in areas where there are no immigrants. I know this was also true in France back in the day. Its the fear of the unknown. In a place like London where over a 3rd of people are immigrants, everyone has an in-law or a friend and probably multiple colleagues from the EU and elsewhere. When you live it, you understand what it is. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wales is statistically speaking one of the most > Eurosceptic regions of the UK, and ironically > according to the 2011 census has the smallest > proportion of Other-EU citizens out of all > regions. Scotland is without doubt pro-EU as is > London, but pretty much the rest of the country > (apart from the odd city here and there) is > anti-EU (including Northern Ireland). > > Louisa.

I\ve only started a few pages ago-- I ignored this thread (and haven't read most of it) until last week. I didn't realise how much misinformation has been spread and it really bothers me. People can pick what they want but they should be able to do so knowing the reality of the situation. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know how you guys keep going with this. I > lost the will to live pages ago.

Fox- immigrants pay taxes (they have higher rates of employment that Brits) so they pay their way regarding public services. Its a lack of investment that is causing the strain rather than it being an unfunded cost. I don't understand your argument about cheap labor. Do you mean in other EU countries or poorer EU citizens coming to the UK to work? DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In 1951, six countries founded the European Coal > and Steel Community, and later, in 1957, the > European Economic Community and the European > Atomic Energy Community: > Belgium > Germany > France > Italy > Luxembourg > the Netherlands > A further 22 countries have since joined the EU, > including a historic expansion in 2004 marking the > re-unification of Europe after decades of > division: > > The UK joined in 1973 > > 4 more countries including Turkey are seeking to > join.. > > Ironically I have concidered living permantly in > Turkey for several years.. and with Turkey > joining, that would of made things much easier.. > with the referendum on whether to remain or leave > and myself coming down on the side of the leave. > > Quite a conundrum .. > > The problem is that many of the current members > are having severe financial problems with other > countries footing the bill. > > With more countries joining and businesses having > unlimited access to cheap labour. (those happy to > work for the minimal wage ) > > All these legal mirants will have access to > Housing, Schools, NHS hosptals which will put > additional burden on these > already stricken facilities.. > > It isn't going to get any better if we Stay. > > DulwichFox

After looking at all the facts, this is the bottom line for me. ?By leaving the EU, Britain will lose its current free trade agreement with the EU unless it accepts the continued unlimited migration of EU citizens to the UK. No country, including Switzerland as recently as 2014 has successfully been able to get full tariff free access to the trade zone while limiting EU migration. ?The new trade deal will take a long time to negotiate (it typically takes 5 years when everyone at the table is willing and eager to reach an agreement). The EU only exports 16% of its goods to the UK while the UK exports 44% of its goods the EU block. The EU will have a much stronger negotiating position in light of this. The idea that the UK trade deficit with the EU is a negotiating advantage is incorrect. In fact, it further weakens the UK. While its export sector is contracting simultaneously the cost of its imports will be escalating causing a recession and inflation simultaneously. ?Not only will the UK lose preferential access to the EU market, it will lose all the trade agreements the EU has negotiated with 50 other countries that the UK currently benefits from. ?The time it will take to renegotiate trade deals with each of these countries should not be underestimated. Also, without the scale of the EU trading block as a prize, the UK will certainly get a worse deal with those 50 countries than is currently the case. ?While de-industrialization is a serious issue impacting the economy, its source is not the EU but rather the ability of global capital to develop industry in the cheapest global labor market. This is something that impacts the US and other advanced economies that have no ties whatsoever to the EU and leaving the EU won?t have any impact on this unfortunately. ?The financial services sector will be significantly impacted by the UK?s departure from the EU as legally they will no longer be able to carry out certain services within the EU. For this reason, all the major non-EU banks will have to reduce head count in London (which will still serve as a smaller center ) as they will need to create headquarter within the EU. ?The period of uncertainty following the vote regarding trade, immigration, changing laws, the new government (as Cameron would certainly resign), a new Scottish referendum (which would now more likely vote to leave the UK) etc would exacerbate the negative impact of a reduction in trade as investment into the economy would completely freeze (probably for 18 months to 2 years based on the feedback we are hearing from our investors). These are the real costs of leaving the E.U. What is there to gain? ?In total only 5% of the UK?s population is EU citizens and that includes a significant amount of Irish who will still be able to come here irrespective of the outcome. ?Most immigration to Britain is from non-EU countries. This illustrates the UK (despite EU migration) still needs to import skills to fill critical roles. EU migrants are employed at higher rates than British citizens, which means that in addition to filling critical roles, they absolutely pay for the services they use via tax contributions. The strain on public services is due to a lack of investment rather than a lack of funds generated from migrants per-se. Therefore significantly reducing immigration cannot be done without further worsening the economic situation of the country. ?A recurring point has been that the poor have been impacted the competition from EU migrants from Eastern European countries. I really don?t understand this argument. Circa 2% of the UK population is from Eastern Europe. How has this 2% influx had a significant negative impact on the working class? They are such a small part of the population that its hard for me to understand. ?Sovereignty?this is an abstract value that each person prizes differently. If this is your reason for leaving, I can respect that as long as you are aware of the true costs involved. Edited for multiple typos!

Why do you think its a red herring? Do you really believe the UK will get the same free trade deal it has now but without accepting EU citizens unilaterally? Honest question. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > root immigration from the rest of the world is > already kept under control in this country. We > simply allow in the people we feel will benefit > the economy eg foreign students, nurses, doctors > etc. By leaving the EU this will not change, all > that will happen is that our former EU partners > will have to join the rest of the world queue for > entry into the UK. Don't see a problem with that > personally. The red herring of accepting freedom > of movement and Schengen has no foundation in fact > whatsoever. Despite the constant use of > Switzerland and Norway as examples of this. > > > Louisa.

Why? natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > VOTE LEAVE !!!!!!

Exactly WorkingMummy. The trade deficit thing is a total non sequitur.

No, not at all. The percentage of trade that the EU does with the UK is a fraction of what the UK does with the entire trading block (as is natural). Germany and the EU as a whole can much more afford to lose the UK as a preferential export market than the UK can afford to lose the entire EU as a preferential export market. The fact that the UK is also reliant on imports will only compound the misery via price inflation at the same time the economy is contracting due to the reduction in exports. In the end it is the total amount of trade rather than the net position that determines the significance of the loss when analysing everyone's relative position. And the CEO of VW is not more important in getting trade deals done than the government. Trade policy is a political tool as much as anything else. If it were up to CEOs, the entire world would be entirely tariff free and it is no where close to that. If you want to vote Leave that's fine but don't harbor any illusions about what the cost of doing so will be.

It really isn't. The loss of cheaper imports will make goods more expensive in the UK while the loss of access to trading partners will reduce the level of economic activity in the country. It is lose-lose.

Louisa-- you wouldn't be losing access to one EU country you'd be losing access to them all. 44% is a massive number. If you think the EU will be in a weaker negotiating position than the UK, you are completely kidding yourself. More importantly, above and beyond the economics of it, the political need to keep the union together will necessitate that the EU takes a hard line with the UK to discourage other populist movements from gaining ground. There is absolutely zero chance of sweat-heart deal. Whatever deal will come forth will be much worse and it will take years before its agreed.

Working Mummy- did you mean 16% to Switzerland and 6% to the UK?

I think he is a universal hero but I agree that a large part of who he is and his legacy is his passionate fight for black pride and civil rights. This article in the NY Times discusses this element of his legacy very well-- its entitled Never the White Man's Negro http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/opinion/muhammad-ali-never-the-white-mans-negro.html

Also, Blah Blah is right-- even if the UK leaves the EU, total immigration figures are unlikely to go down because there is a skills shortage in this country that migrants fill. More non-EU migrants than EU migrants already enter the country and the UK has 100% control and discretion over their entry. Yes, perhaps the country could cut off entry completely but it would be a disaster. The NHS relies heavily on immigrants across the board including for senior consultant positions that cannot otherwise be filled. Companies involved in research and science would be the next hardest hit. Again, the economy will of course suffer as a result. If you want to leave, again that's fine but you should be wide awake to what the reality of that decision means.

The point is Louisa is that you will not get access to the free trade deal without free movement of people. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Therefore, if your main reason for wanting to leave the EU is to be able to prevent UE citizens from having a right to live and work in Britain you need to recognise that you are 100% saying good-bye to the free trade deal. You just are. Britain is no where near important enough of a market to be given an exception to that. Moreover, Britain will have to negotiate new trade deals again not just with the EU but with other major trading partners. The trade deal the EU secured with various countries reflected the size of the trading block. The UK as a standalone country will not get the same trade deals with the US etc. Whatever it will get will take years to negotiate. If someone wants to leave the EU, I respect that but you should make that decision with open eyes to the true cost. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is absolutely no evidence that if the UK > leaves the EU we would be under any obligation to > accept Schengen. If we want trade deals and to > stay in the EEA we would be able to negotiate free > movement based on what sort of settlement we > receive regarding trade. As others have said > previously, the chances of the EU forcing us to > accept freedom of movement as part of any deal on > trade is ridiculous. We would be by far the > largest market place on their doorstep with a > substantial population. It would be an entirely > different ball game to Swiss and Norweigan trading > deals, which they seem very happy with anyway. > Don't see either of them in a hurry to join the EU > do you?. > > Louisa.

EU migrants have a higher rate of employment than the UK as a whole. The NY Times article put it at 85% and that figure will include their school age children and stay at home parents. The idea that EU migrants are a drain economically is pure fantasy. Their taxes pay for the services they use. Also, Turkey is no where near joining the EU. Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > While Briatin is in the EU, anyone from EU can > come - no questions. The control of migrants is > therefore pushed onto migrants from rest of world. > It clearly doesn't work. Non working migrants from > EU can come and claim benefits. Restrictions on > non EU increase. > > As the EU gets larger - Turkey will join soon - > this will not improve. > > Leaving the EU permits UK to regain control of > it's borders and control the flow of people - to > suit teh available jobs, resources etc. It's not > rocket science... there is a finite amount of > land. > > No one is saying we don't want a mixed culture - > this is not a racist/ xenophobic stance. It's > reality is about numbers that will only > increase.... > > London's streets are not paved in gold, although > it is believed to be.

Volver is my favourite Almovodar film though I like them all. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown shouldn't be left off a list of his best work.

So you believe that most companies without explicit tendering rules wouldn't give contracts to the lowest bidders? Aside from government contracts, I simply don't accept that to be a realistic position. If sovereignty could solve this problem it wouldn't be a major social and political issue in the US, where its impact has been devastating on the former industrial corridors of the nation. I wish the solution was as simple as leaving the E.U. but it isn't.

Jules-- and you think those firms wouldn't have relocated for cheaper labor costs if Britain wasn't in the EU. That is a global problem impacting all high employment cost countries. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the EU grants the companies obtained were based on the country the firms were moving to. That is to say, Britain's membership in the EU had nothing to do with the companies receiving the grant. Therefore, voting to leave will change absolutely none of that... The same will continue to happen as it happens everywhere in the world except the UK will have worse trade terms and lose its ability to operate as a financial HQ for Europe.

Yes, there is no reason why M&S wouldn't be able to open while work continues above. Look at Evans Cycles where the gap between the store opening and the flats coming to market was many months.

That's really shocking... The government should not let that stand. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Got a Leave leaflet through the post today. Two > massively misleading statement both back and front > (discredited 350m and Turkey immently joining > claims). Also a map of Europe showing the new > countries that are supposedly joining (they're > not) with Iraq and Syria highlighted. Clearly > trying to link remaining and threat of terrorism. > Boris and Chums are wilfully misleading the > public.

I like the ones other people have mentioned too (that I've seen). I haven't seen True Romance so I'll add it to my list Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix you have good taste in movies. > > Fans of Spinal Tap should try A mighty wind.

I hope its the private company because they could just have their license as an approved company revoked or suspended. If its actually a problem within Southwark, for me at least, it is a much scarier problem.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix - didn't you say earlier in this thread > that some builders can use a private building > control service, is it certain that this was > signed off by Southwark BC? Either way, as > Southwark was agreeing to use the building for > social housing they should have monitored more > carefully and heads should roll, but I'd be > interested to know if one of these private > services you mentioned was involved. Yes, I have said that and it is very much the case. About 20% of building control approvals are done by private companies. Southwark's story regarding who carried out the inspections has been changing. In the FOI request they are claiming it was a private company. However, that has not been their consistent story, the company who the claim to have used denies it and the journalist investigating this has declared she has good reason to believe Southwark are lying about that.