The EU has identified savings from Brexit...

[oggbashan]

Officials at the EU are pleased with one aspect of Brexit.

Although France has suggested that English will no longer need to be an official language for EU documents and instantaneous translation of debates, it won't happen because of Malta. Malta still wants English AND Maltese. Other countries don't want everything in French or German. English is still the most understood language across all countries in the EU.

BUT...

Officials have identified a major saving from Brexit. Documents will no longer have to be produced in Welsh or Scots Gaelic (unless the Scottish Nationalist Party wins a referendum to leave the UK AND is allowed to join the EU).

The current inertia on procedural changes in the EU, and the probable need to reinterpret the Lisbon Treaty, means that the saving might be achieved by 2050.

Of course, by then Turkey might have joined the EU so Turkish and Kurdish might have to replace Welsh and Scots Gaelic...

 

[DeYaKen]

Officials at the EU are pleased with one aspect of Brexit.

Although France has suggested that English will no longer need to be an official language for EU documents and instantaneous translation of debates, it won't happen because of Malta. Malta still wants English AND Maltese. Other countries don't want everything in French or German. English is still the most understood language across all countries in the EU.

BUT...

Officials have identified a major saving from Brexit. Documents will no longer have to be produced in Welsh or Scots Gaelic (unless the Scottish Nationalist Party wins a referendum to leave the UK AND is allowed to join the EU).

The current inertia on procedural changes in the EU, and the probable need to reinterpret the Lisbon Treaty, means that the saving might be achieved by 2050.

Of course, by then Turkey might have joined the EU so Turkish and Kurdish might have to replace Welsh and Scots Gaelic...

No wonder foreigners (everyone who is not British is a foreigner, no matter what country the Brit find themselves in) find us confusing.
Here we are in the middle of an election to decide whether or not our country is to be turned into a tax haven funded by the old, infirm and poor. Yet the only thing we seem to be worried about is how Johnny foreigner is going to get by without us. It really is none of our business.

 

[oggbashan]

No wonder foreigners (everyone who is not British is a foreigner, no matter what country the Brit find themselves in) find us confusing.

Here we are in the middle of an election to decide whether or not our country is to be turned into a tax haven funded by the old, infirm and poor. Yet the only thing we seem to be worried about is how Johnny foreigner is going to get by without us. It really is none of our business.

If you are in Scotland the election is about whether Scotland should be in or out of the UK; in Northern Ireland whether Ireland should unite as one EU country or have a hard border; in Wales about how much Welsh you should speak and how much we should pay to keep a steel industry; and in England about which of us is going to pay MORE taxes, and all parties want us to pay more...

Brexit? That was decided already. What matters now is what the terms are. The Lib Dems are suggesting we could change the result of the referendum and stay in the EU even if they won't make that a promise.

Labour suggests that there can be pie for everyone and only the 'others' will pay.

Conservatives suggest that there should be less pie and the fat cats should have more of the pie than most of us.

It doesn't matter what I and my family vote. There is no UKIP candidate standing in our constituency so it will remain Conservative as it has been for generations...

 

[Hard_Rom]

Labour suggests that there can be pie for everyone and only the 'others' will pay.

Conservatives suggest that there should be less pie and the fat cats should have more of the pie than most of us.

Hence vote Liberal. That's what we do here 70% of the time. Liberals have been called the 'natural ruling party' of Canada.

 

[oggbashan]

Hence vote Liberal. That's what we do here 70% of the time. Liberals have been called the 'natural ruling party' of Canada.

But Canada's Liberals are nothing like our Liberal Democrats. The last UK Liberal Government in the UK ended in 1916 followed by a coalition with the Conservatives.

 

[Hard_Rom]

But Canada's Liberals are nothing like our Liberal Democrats. The last UK Liberal Government in the UK ended in 1916 followed by a coalition with the Conservatives.

Its the centrist party. How much different can it be?

 

[DeYaKen]

If you are in Scotland the election is about whether Scotland should be in or out of the UK; in Northern Ireland whether Ireland should unite as one EU country or have a hard border; in Wales about how much Welsh you should speak and how much we should pay to keep a steel industry; and in England about which of us is going to pay MORE taxes, and all parties want us to pay more...

Brexit? That was decided already. What matters now is what the terms are. The Lib Dems are suggesting we could change the result of the referendum and stay in the EU even if they won't make that a promise.

Labour suggests that there can be pie for everyone and only the 'others' will pay.

Conservatives suggest that there should be less pie and the fat cats should have more of the pie than most of us.

It doesn't matter what I and my family vote. There is no UKIP candidate standing in our constituency so it will remain Conservative as it has been for generations...

No! Those are just the smokescreens thrown up by a party that doesn't want to talk about its record. They don't want to tell you that the reason they want you to pay more tax and cut pensions, is because the companies they pay to manage prisons decide that dying people are fit for work, DON'T PAY ANY TAX.

This election is about what sort of Britain do you want to live in. In my case, it is more like what kind of country do I want to leave for my Children and Grandchildren. What happens with Europe will happen, the way we vote will have little effect on that. No matter who gets in they will give up anything in order to keep the current access to the financial services market.

 

[oggbashan]

Its the centrist party. How much different can it be?

UK Liberal Democrats are left of centre but were seriously damaged by being in coalition government with the Conservatives, their first experience of any government power for decades.

That coalition offended many of their supporters because the Liberal Democrat MPs were associated with some of the impact of austerity measures after the financial crash. Their MPs had to learn that actually making hard decisions can be unpopular. They ought to have known that because they had had power in local government.

Their supporters had a wide range of weird views that didn't matter as long as the Liberal Democrats had no power. The party could promise anything, even contradictory promises, knowing that there was no prospect that they would ever be asked to deliver those promises.

They promised to abolish student tuition fees and to introduce proportional representation. Once in coalition they couldn't deliver on the tuition fees. That damaged them badly.

The Conservatives as part of the coalition agreement promised a consultation on proportional representation but fixed the question so that what was offered was the worst version - and it was rejected.

The major reason for voting Liberal Democrat is to say "None of the above" to Labour and Conservatives. But then UKIP came along and stole the protest vote, as did minor groups including the Greens and The Raving Monster Loony Party.

BUT - Labour has moved far to the left. There ought to be room for the Liberal Democrats as a left-leaning centrist group but they are seen as irrelevant. Their stance that the Brexit vote ought to be re-run may wreck their chance at this election. People don't know what they are for - only what they are against.

It's a shame. Liberal Democrats have good ideas and good policies and where they have been in power in local government they have been reasonably competent. In coalition they did good work in modifying and softening Conservative policies but they don't get credit for what they did, only blame for what they couldn't do.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The minority party in a minority government can hardly be expected to get their policies through. Taking the sting out of the bigger party's policies is about all that can be expected.

All the other party options are far right or left. What's a middle of the road person to do? UKIP would be totally out of the question for me. Probably most Canadians too. The left here has a following but a rep for bad fiscal policies at the provincial level keeps them out of power federally.

Our local governments (municipalities and counties) are not politically affiliated. Probably provincial is the equivalent considering our small population.

Can't hold a grudge against parties for too long. If their policies are sound give them a chance.

 

[dan_c00000]

One of the interesting things I've learned about Brexit is that companies setup shop there so they can deal with the English speaking world. Those businesses call centers can handle customers in the UK, US, and Canada.

It's interesting how Brexit and Trump are linked: UK people didn't want Poles taking their crummy service sector jobs (every TM Lewin or Thomas Pink I went into had Central/Eastern Europeans working there) just like how moronic US voters believed Mexicans were stealing crummy agricultural jobs from white people.

 

[oggbashan]

One of the interesting things I've learned about Brexit is that companies setup shop there so they can deal with the English speaking world. Those businesses call centers can handle customers in the UK, US, and Canada.

It's interesting how Brexit and Trump are linked: UK people didn't want Poles taking their crummy service sector jobs (every TM Lewin or Thomas Pink I went into had Central/Eastern Europeans working there) just like how moronic US voters believed Mexicans were stealing crummy agricultural jobs from white people.

The loss of jobs was a probable factor in voting for Brexit but a bigger reason was the stress on services such as doctors, schools, and housing. Immigration has been good for the economy in that there are many more jobs created but also bad because the population growth has outstripped house and school building.

Agriculture in the UK has relied on temporary immigrant labour for decades. Although in the past hop-pickers used to come to the country from London, and fruit pickers were mainly women from local villages and towns, the changing family patterns have meant that those women now have permanent jobs and are no longer available for seasonal agriculture.

Back in the 1970s we used to live in an expanding village. My wife was looking after a three year old and a baby. During the fruit picking season she was the delivery point and contact for mail and workmen for 16 houses because she was the only person at home during the day. In that village now almost all the women work part-time and cannot go fruit picking.

The fruit picking is now done by young people from the EU and a few UK students. In a few weeks they can earn substantial amounts compared with job opportunities in their own countries. While they are in the UK they can look around for more permanent work in service industries such as hotels, restaurants and care homes. For a UK youngster the pay and conditions are unattractive but for young people from Spain, Portugal and Greece for example they are much better than no employment at all in their own countries.

Another Brexit factor is the inertia and complexity of EU systems and rules. Many Brits see the EU as undemocratic, incompetent, bureaucratic and interfering - Big Government at its worst. IF the UK had been offered ANY hope that the EU might improve the referndum result might have been different. But what was on offer was MORE centralisation, less acceptance of individual nation or regional identities, and bigger EU government...

 

[Hard_Rom]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/what-the-united-kingdom-could-learn-from-canada-1.2692425

Yes, Canada and the United Kingdom share the same style of government and systems of law, the same head of state and many cultural touchstones.

On the political front, there are some similarities. For example, no one is allowed to discuss reform of the health care system, preferring instead to punt the discussion until after it craters into the bankrupt ground.

But there are differences.

As with Canada, there's also no serious debate here about immigration because everyone is united in a common position. But unlike Canada, everyone in Britain seems against it, or at least for restricting it to low levels.

Hence the cross-party fear of Polish plumbers, Spanish service staff, Romanian labourers and Canadian managers. Okay, we Canadians aren't in the crosshairs, but we do run the post and the bank there, so our time will surely come.

The resistance to immigration and immigrants stems from something Canada has in spades, and of which Britain has very little: distance.

Leave aside the fact the British economy needs the bodies or that new arrivals claim fewer benefits than native-born Brits because they came here with the express purpose of, you know, working. No, every political leader will spend the run-up to next year's general election channelling their inner Enoch Powell.

The Conservatives could do worse than to look over and see how the Canadian government has reached out to immigrant communities. Hard-working, family-oriented and fiercely proud of their new land, these communities should be a natural constituency. Conservatives should stare down the little Englanders in his party and make the case for immigration and the economy.


*we also have separatists (Quebec not Scotland) and dread the of loss of cultural identity (Giant US not foreign EU)*

 

[oggbashan]

...
The resistance to immigration and immigrants stems from something Canada has in spades, and of which Britain has very little: distance.

...

Canada has land for housing. Britain is drastically short of it and that shortage is made worse by government policies on housing development.

We just don't have enough houses or any accommodation for the numbers of immigrants arriving in the UK every year. Even the Conservatives are not suggesting NO immigration, just a maximum of 100,000 net increase each year. We can't even cope with that number with our current house building programme.

IF the UK spent money on providing the facilities for the immigrants who are here or coming, immigration wouldn't be such a problem for many. If the UK government tackled the problem of affordable housing? But they don't. Too many families even with all adults working have real difficulties affording or even finding somewhere reasonable to live. It is worst in London and SE England but it is a problem in most of the UK. It is not improved by overseas buyers purchasing almost all new build apartments in London. The number of empty NEW properties in London is a scandal.

The government definition of 'affordable housing' is a sick joke for many people. It is only affordable if both partners earn much more than the average wage. Anyone in a low paid service job has no hope of getting a decent home.

The UK cannot continue to accept or absorb, let alone assimilate, the numbers of immigrants that have been arriving in recent years. In the past? We could. It took time for immigrants to be assimilated and to adapt but their numbers were not overwhelming.

Now we need to build a new medium size city every year to cope with the increased population numbers. What are building each year is a small town. My local district is struggling to provide schools for the number of new houses being built. Over the next five years we expect to increase the population by 10 - 15% and our schools have already been extended beyong reasonable sizes.

The roads? What new roads? There's no money for new roads. Doctors? We've already overstretched our doctors' capacity, so much so that they are retiring early or just giving up because of stress. Another 10% on their books? Impossible.

The UK has accepted immigrants for hundreds of years but never in such numbers year on year. Unless something changes drastically we can't meet the demand.

 

[DeYaKen]

Canada has land for housing. Britain is drastically short of it and that shortage is made worse by government policies on housing development.

We just don't have enough houses or any accommodation for the numbers of immigrants arriving in the UK every year. Even the Conservatives are not suggesting NO immigration, just a maximum of 100,000 net increase each year. We can't even cope with that number with our current house building programme.

IF the UK spent money on providing the facilities for the immigrants who are here or coming, immigration wouldn't be such a problem for many. If the UK government tackled the problem of affordable housing? But they don't. Too many families even with all adults working have real difficulties affording or even finding somewhere reasonable to live. It is worst in London and SE England but it is a problem in most of the UK. It is not improved by overseas buyers purchasing almost all new build apartments in London. The number of empty NEW properties in London is a scandal.

The government definition of 'affordable housing' is a sick joke for many people. It is only affordable if both partners earn much more than the average wage. Anyone in a low paid service job has no hope of getting a decent home.

The UK cannot continue to accept or absorb, let alone assimilate, the numbers of immigrants that have been arriving in recent years. In the past? We could. It took time for immigrants to be assimilated and to adapt but their numbers were not overwhelming.

Now we need to build a new medium size city every year to cope with the increased population numbers. What are building each year is a small town. My local district is struggling to provide schools for the number of new houses being built. Over the next five years we expect to increase the population by 10 - 15% and our schools have already been extended beyong reasonable sizes.

The roads? What new roads? There's no money for new roads. Doctors? We've already overstretched our doctors' capacity, so much so that they are retiring early or just giving up because of stress. Another 10% on their books? Impossible.

The UK has accepted immigrants for hundreds of years but never in such numbers year on year. Unless something changes drastically we can't meet the demand.

The whole idea that Britain doesn't have enough land to build houses is laughable. The South East is considered crowded but even there, they have plenty of open space. In places like County Durham sheep outnumber people by about 10 to one. The problem is that builders are allowed to buy land and sit on it for several years waiting for the house price to peak before they start building. Even when they start they can keep permission to build open for seven years by digging a single trench.

The population density in Britain is way below places like Japan so the argument that we don't have room for immigrants doesn't hold water.

As for the services and infrastructure, that is purely a political decision. Industry wants immigrants, but the same industry doesn't want to pay the taxes to provide the infrastructure to support them. The funding of election campaigns comes from those same companies who do not pay their taxes so political parties are frightened to take them on. Instead, they pick on soft targets like the poor and elderly. They cut funding to public health and public education because the people who fund their campaigns don't use either. That is what is causing the problem, not the people coming to Britain in search of a better life.

Anyone who believes that Brexit is going to reduce immigration is living in cloud cuckoo land. All the time business wants them they will be allowed in. The only way Brexit will change the numbers is if our economy shrinks, reducing the demand for labour. When that happens most of us will be paying more taxes. I say most because there will be one group who will not be hit. The very same people who benefitted most from Britain's mini boom.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Valuable farmland should not be used for residential housing. Been many years since the UK was self reliant in food production but every hectare of land helps. My London sits in the middle of some of the most productive farmland in the world. Toronto is just south of the Holland Marsh a very valuable agriculture piece of acreage.

We need to build upwards not outwards. Urban sprawl is bad. Forces car use and expensive road and infrastructure building and maintenance.

New house being built here are on the order of 300K CDN dollars. You must have two very good paychecks to afford that. Why no one can build a 150k home is beyond me. The 300K homes are huge and sit on virtually no property. Postage stamp sized lawns hardly big enough for growing youngster to get some exercise on.

They want to get rid of the Ontario Municipal Board here to make it easier for local governments and developers to develop towns and cities. Bad idea IMO. Will lead to more urban sprawl pushed by developers more intent on making a buck than anything else.

 

[DeYaKen]

We need to build upwards not outwards. Urban sprawl is bad. Forces car use and expensive road and infrastructure building and maintenance.

Been there, done that. we are now busy tearing them down because people didn't want to live there. Crime rates were huge, Maintenance cost a fortune. Heating had to be electric because a gas explosion in one flat could bring half the block down. Generating electricity from fossil fuels is only 20% efficient so there go all your environmental issues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/high-rise/trellick-tower-history-jg-ballad/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/demolition-of-iconic-tower-blocks-begins/7004793.article