Good morning folks.
Today's headline is that Cameron is now very worried about the effects of an Exit on the UK economy. So much so that he is mentioning that maintaining the current level of spending on state pensions would be unaffordable.
I've been saying for weeks to people: - we've got a huge debt, an Exit would cause a recession, we just can't afford it. Why is it that this simple reasoning has only now become apparent to PM? Could he not have worked this out when he blithely promised a referendum? has he not heard of a cynical vote winning strategy being quietly buried? Could he not have subsequently bitten the bullet and said - sorry folks, didn't really expect to win the election, didn't really mean it, and pointed out that we can't afford it? After all he was planning to step down before 2020.
Is anyone else furious with him for failing to deal with the disagreements in his own back benches and dragging the rest of us to the brink?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36509931
Gransnet forums
News & politics
The EU - we are on the home straight folks!
(1001 Posts)You didn't think I would ignore this did you?
He is a man and unable to think laterally!!
I was concerned about him right from the beginning of announcing the referendum. He kept saying he couldn't see what would happen with a Brexit.
Well in which case, he should not be PM afterwards.
It is obvious that DC is doing more scare tactics, especially to older people.
I presume though that people realise that uncontrolled immigration is going to cost the country dear, in monetary terms?
JessM. He promised a referendum if I remember correctly. He really would have been done for, if he did not deliver it.
I have been quietly worrying about this too JessM
- All sides agree their will be at least an initial downturn in the economy and there may be a longer, deeper one.
- We have already seen "austerity" under the Conservatives they have failed to cut debt; it is already growing and expected to keep growing according to forecasts
- How would the government (still Conservative with their view of "austerity") make the cuts they will need to make.
*They have taken from the poor
*They have taken from the sick
*They have taken from the disabled
*They have taken from the children
They would rather make cuts than raise taxes so who does anyone think it left.
There are really only the "protected" areas which include Pensions, the NHS and Education - which do we think they will choose?
Although they have protected the basic state pension (£119.35)and Pension Credit for the very poorest they have not protected other elements of the pension. Pension Savings Credit is being cut which means these poor pensioners will eventually loose about £1,000 a year so the Conservatives are certainly prepared to cut pensions when they can get away with it - and what better excuse than this.
Yes Jess, I am furious but I am also sad that some people are prepared to bet mine and my children's and grandchildren's future when the outcome is a complete unknown.
They will also need to somehow make provision for the income they will lose from the taxes etc the EU migrants pay to the exchequer every year. If they need to go back to the EU quickly it will have a sudden decrease in Govt income. Should the UK pensioners need to leave the EU due to cost factors they will also need to be catered for. That would be unlikely to happen immediately but would certainly be in the pipeline.
If EU migration is stopped the UK will need to import people to do the work many of them currently do - where from may well be the question. Of course it could be that people on benefits could be forced to do the jobs the migrants will be vacating by stopping their benefits and bussing them to the areas which need the labour.
The Referendum was very poorly thought out and rushed through too quickly without proper thought given to possible or likely outcomes.
Have to agree with your last sentence WW. We vote these people in to make considered decisions and we should not have been put in this position just to save the Conservative party.
When new migrants come, unless they have jobs limed up, they take from the Gov purse, not give. Well yes in VAT, but not in benefits, housing benefit and everything else.
I often think the left are quite confused on this issue.
Justin Welby has apparently written in support of staying in, in Mail on Sunday today. (Haven't read it). I would imagine he hasn't a political axe to grind and is deeply principled, so I think he has a valid opinion, although I am not a churchgoer or even a Christian I admit.
obleone don't worry, they will only be able to come here if they have gone through an arduous and slow administrative process and they will be coming to work. The evidence is clear that migrants from the EU and from outside it (the majority) come here to meet the needs of the UK economy - to which they make a net contribution. Very few claim benefits compared to UK citizens and their entitlements are being cut. Disrupting the current system of immigration will have an immediate impact on UK businesses in SE which will struggle to recruit the staff they need. I think it is you that is confused.
But that isnt the migrants that people have a problem with as far as I know.
I must strongly disagree with you on that last post. obie - the figures show that the great majority of the EU migrants WORK in the UK - that is why they come - more jobs and they have the mentality where they will do anything to earn some money - this means they pay taxes to the Treasury. The young single people will not be taking anything from the Treasury but contributing. This is the money we will be losing. Because they will do these low paid hard jobs they are employed immediately. Most of them are in contact with friends and relations in UK so have somewhere to stay temporarily and also know where to get a job.
Do you think we will only have people coming to the UK with jobs all lined up when they are the poorly paid jobs? The companies will not pay to bring these people over for an interview and neither will the employment agencies. Priti Patel is promising people from the Indian subcontinent they will have easy access to the UK if we exit the EU. Will they all have jobs lined up?
Don't forget there are a lot of British people not working and receiving benefits besides many people working in such poorly paid jobs that the rest of the population need to, in effect, subsidise the companies for paying insufficient wages for the people to live properly. We have gone so far along this road of jobs not paying for people to be able to be self sufficient - a very sad situation for anyone to be in. While we are a country with so many low paid jobs and a system which then gives benefits to make up the shortfall we will never be a really vibrant country again - no matter who are doing the jobs - British people or migrants.
Hasn't DC just negotiated that they will have to pay in for four years before they can draw out?
I think that is part of the negotiations GG but I was really referring to how it operates now. This is what should have been the case years ago!
Totally disagree with you Welshwife.
Yes, when net migration is 30,000 a year, yes they come to do jobs that Brits or others cannot or will not due.
But that is not the situation in the last 18 months. And not what the general population is talking about. And is concerned about.
The general population is listening to the scare tactics from Brexit.
Why do people continue to spread the idea that we can leave the EU and still have the benefits of free trade without the free movement of people?
All trade agreements include goods, services and people. If we do not agree to the free movement of people, we do not get the free movement of goods.
EFTA? Free movement of people.
EEA? Free movement of people.
Brexit are conning us.
Why do people think that it will be horrendous trading out of the EU?
The top 4 or top 6 wealthiest countries are not European. And surprisingly few European countries make the top 20. 4 or 5.
We trade out of the EU at the moment so we do not think it will be horrendous. What we do think is that leaving the EU is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
20% of Hovis flour comes from Canada. However, Canada wants better trade with the EU, not the UK on its own.
If I were a Canadian wheat grower, I would rather sell all my wheat to the EU rather than a bit of it to the UK and the rest to the EU. It would cost me more to organise both sales than just the one. So who loses out on the UK moving out of the EU?
The EU as a whole is the biggest trading bloc in the world, obieone. It stands to reason that the UK will have more clout being part of that group rather than standing on its own.
Many of the top wealthiest countries are wealthy because of their financial centres, not trading goods. Switzerland springs to mind, along with Lichtenstein and Luxembourg.
"Twelve of the 25 richest countries are in Europe, while the US and Canada also made the cut. The UK did not make the top 25, ranking at No. 27 with a GDP per capita of $39,224 (£27,241).
Some small countries, such as Liechtenstein, Nauru, Vatican City, Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra were not included in the study.
The GDP per capita listed represents the amount of wealth produced in 2015 and is expressed in international dollars."
According to Business Insider magazine, 12 of the 25 richest countries are in Europe. Last year's figures.
Luxembourg is number two, obieone.
I'm with you on this obieone.
dj, dj. If I am correct, going by the second list which seems fair as it is based on wealth per person,the official term being GDP per capita population size, it is actually 7 in the top 25 and not 12.
5 in the top 20 are in Europe.
Only 1 in the top 10.
That sounds pretty poor to me. A lot worse than I thought.
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
