On Sunday, 11 February 2018 22:54:50 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/02/2018 12:47, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:04:53 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

snip

I have asked and none of them have come up with any facts, only
fantasy and BS. Wanna give it a go?

That depends on if you're asking real questions or point scoring.

Given I don't have a dog in this fight, I have only / ever been
interested in the facts mate. In fact, it's the whole crux of my main
discussion. However, I don't count someone's 'hunches' or opinion,
hopes and desires as facts. So, if that doesn't completely tie your
hands, I would really like an answer please (even if it's only one
particular Brexiteers version of it).

For someone who claims not to have a dog in this fight, you make it look
so..


snip

And you think that's what your fellow fanatical Brexiteers 'voted for'
do you? Or maybe you all voted for something different so it will be
interesting to see how well they manage to placate that range.

I wouldn't have called myself fanatical, 99.9% of Brexiters.

But I'm not sure you would be in a position to judge that.

Maybe not. I have my reasons for supporting Brexit and have given them
here numerous times. I'm no so fanatical I have joined in or paid any
subscription to further Brexit.

Unlike many
here I have never started a topic on Brexit.

Fair enough. However (devils advocate) that may just mean you are more
respectful of the group than not a fanatical Brexiteer.

Perhaps, it is also a time thing.

Perhaps it's more a loser Remoaner thing.

'Remoaner', another classic Brexiteer comment. If I called you a
Brexsh1teer than your use of 'Remoaner' might be considered
reasonable.

Fair enough, but I see no need for Brexiters to be called thick or any
other negative quantity. Many remainers come out as poor losers. Many
remainers have embraced the will of the British people and moved on. My
reference to Remoaners are to those who haven't moved forward and would
with to thwart Brexit against the will of the electorate.

I note you snipped that for every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit
votes.

And what do you think the 'limited movement of labour' is going to do?
It's foxes and rabbits out there mate, if there are no jobs then there
won't be people 'migrating (not immigrating note) to fill them.

Then the laws of supply and demand take over.

Yes, I just said that ...

And therefore we can expect an increase in wages.

Its a Remoaner thing to
conveniently deny this.

They don't and I just suggested it.

They most certainly do even if you don't. I am talking of Remoaners
here, as described above.

Brilliant planning ... not!

I would say it was a lack of planning from politicians,

Well duh, nothing to do with the EU then?

Not really. The UK could have stopped the expansion of the EU with
developing Eastern European countries and agreeing to immediate free
movement of labour.

Quite. Something we certainly can't influence when *outside* the EU.

I can assure you it is easier to influence immigration into the UK when
outside the EU.

to **** off the
country and make false promises of house building and immigration.

So it's conspiracy theories now ... or can you offer any proof for
that?

What is the purpose of David Cameron promising to keep immigration to
30,000 or so and in reality 300,000 per year come here to work.

Pass. I'm not gullible enough to believe *any* of their promises (and
why I couldn't vote in the EU referendum).

Precisely, and as a result he got a blooded nose.

What
did David Cameron say about desired immigration levels?

No idea, I don't listen to any of their BS and empty promises.

Perhaps you should and be enlightened.

By listening to BS?

You are now showing your Remoan credentials, where any reason for
supporting Brexit has to be BS.

That is another reason for
Brexit. An end to the BS.

Yeah, that seems to make sense (not).

It might have helped if the EU didn't give him a bloody nose before the
referendum.

Did they? Or is it likely to be no different to what we could end up
with after the 'negotiations'?

You are entitled to your opinion, misguided or otherwise.

It was a question mate. Try to keep up. Fancy actually answering it
this time though?

As you have said before any reason I give will be regarded by you as BS.

DC asked for very few things. The most crucial was immigration:
https://www.ft.com/content/3901dd48-...c-36b487ebd80a

All I can imagine is you (Fanatic Brexiteers) are just on a wind-up
here, you really can't be serious?

That shows how clueless you are.

Well, me and the other 2/3rds of the electorate apparently ...

Its the ones who vote that count, best get used to it.

Get used to your version of democracy and ignoring the actual 'will of
the people' you mean?

My version is simple I note you snipped my post that highlighted for
every 100 remain votes there were 108 Brexit votes.

You go home and say to your family ... Hands up who wants to go on
holiday to Spain this year ... and only 1 of the three of you put your
hands up, do you all then go on holiday to Spain?

I know if it were you posing the question you would, if it were me
there would be a discussion about alternatives that at least 2/3rd of
us might agree on.

You seem to misunderstand democracy, it seems a loser Remoaner thing.

If 108 say Spain, and 100 say no to Spain, then the ones who don't
express their preference had their chance either way. One assumes by the
very nature of democracy they simple didn't care. Either way their
numbers simply don't count.

I assume you haven't worked for a while

I'm not sure what that's got to do with us leaving the EU?

A great deal, it means you don't understand the consequence of
immigration of wages.

Really? You think that just because I've stopped working I no longer
understand anything about working? That I don't have children, friends
or family that are working. Every time you come out with anything like
this as an attempt to diminish someone else's opinion or understanding
of something you further demonstrate you may well be a left brainer
and so not to be trusted with any decisions involving human beings
that are complex. And that's not an insult / slur, it's an
observation.

Perhaps you do understand but in denial of the consequence of
immigration of wages, or rather it wasn't so.

and have a house that has accumulated in value from housing demand.

Irrelevant.

Its very relevant. Its another reason why people voted Brexit.

Cite?

Do you deny the current housing shortage hasn't had an effect on the
Brexit vote?

Why are
you in denial why so many voted for Brexit.

I am fully aware of the reasons why people voted either way but most
of them can be proven to be bogus. I don't know (personally) of a
single person who voted for Brexit because of house prices.

Perhaps its so obvious. You now know of one. If you had actually asked
the question, "did the increase in housing demand and house prices
affect your vote", you might have got the odd 'yes'.

You are doing very nicely,

By living in the house I bought 40 years ago?

Precisely. Many will never be able to own a house for so long. When was
the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first year
after qualifying?

and those trying to get on the housing ladder aren't.

And that has been the same long before any supposed impact because of
the EU. Please try to stick to facts.

The facts are simple, just look at house-price earnings ratios of the
past few decades.

When was the last time you knew a NQT purchase their house in the first
year after qualifying?

Houses have always accumulated in value and I can't ever
remember a time when there were loads standing empty anywhere ... till
now of course.

They have accumulated in value in relation to wages. The past 10 years
has seen unprecedented house-price wage ratio.

See above. If you can sell every house you build, why aren't all the
developers jumping on the bandwagon?

Governments and local authorities make builder jump through hoops, plus
there are substantial local taxes to pay for infrastructure.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/03/amazin...ust-1-7283928/

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes
that have been empty for over six months."

That might take the edge off at least?

I have no problem in the likes of business rates and other inducements
for businesses to move to these areas. However most transport subsidies
tend to be centred on a few cities and these areas are in a downward spiral.

But not everone works, or needs to travel to work?

I also have no problems with escalating rates for empty houses.

So why didn't we try that first before throwing the baby out with the
bath water?

Because no party showed the will to sort out the housing problem. As you
said earlier we should never believe politicians, hence Brexit.

But hey, many of the migrant workers who have come here to work , pay
taxes and for our pensions may well choose to migrate home again and
leave the older immigrants and their families who have come here
though our existing immigration and customs controls and may not be so
keen / able to work to take over? Or not.

And create the need for in-work benefits and top up Housing Benefits.

Quite. Immigration we have and have had *full control* over since the
beginning?

Certainly more control. When was the last time the UK population swelled
by over 3 million in 10 years?

It's optimistic to debate with t i m, he does not require reason. That has been made quite clear.