Only 41% want to brexit now, time to vote again asap

[Idreamofalandrover]

www.google.co.uk/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1EA0Q6

Biggest swing towards remain now people are smelling the coffee

LoveinTokyo I believe you. It is a fairly common tactic and I expect both sides used it.

Well not really. It is a fact that older people were much more likely to vote leave and younger people were much more likely to vote remain. And it is a fact that younger people will have to live with the consequences of the leave vote for longer than older people. And it is a fact that if there are job losses as a result of Brexit then that will affect the working age population far more than it will affect the retired population.

But I have also seen many many many example of people in their 60s and 70s telling younger people that (a) they know best because they remember what it was like before 1973, as if that is in any way relevant to life in 2017, (b) that younger people should respect them purely because they are older and "wiser", and (c) that "we didn't fight the war to be ruled by Germany".

Jog on, mates. Unless you are over 90 years old you didn't do jack shit in the war.

EltonJohnsSyrup is right

LoveinTokyo - anyone who fought the war must now be well into their 90's and I don't believe many of them have regular conversations with youngsters.

A lot are in homes, suffering from dementia or other health problems.

Unless you know of somewhere where loads of 90 year-olds are chatting with a load of seventeen year-olds on a daily basis.

That is by the by however.

I have also never heard a 60 - 70year old tell a bunch of 20 year olds that they must listen to him/her because they are older. Ever.
I am sure some do just as I am sure there are some younger people who tell anyone over 50 that their opinions don't count and they should not be allowed to vote/drive/own a house after the age of 75. (Again - no-one I know personally)

Sorry - LoveinTokyo - I think I might have misunderstood your post.
Apologies if I have. Were you quoting another poster?

EltonJohnsSyrup conveniently left out the global economic crash.

Also, the increase in the age of living which has a much greater impact on housing costs than migration. That's not to blame people for living longer but successive governments have ignored the effects that longer life for the majority of the population have had on housing (and pensions!).

Easier to blame everything on immigration as there's a quick fix for that. Plus, the xenophobic population of the UK laps it up. It's a win win for politicians- means they can ignore some entrenched and complex problems whilst whipping up support via populist means.

Who stood up and said let’s think about this let’s discuss the implications in parliament of the referendum before its agreed upon.

Nope. This was not the case at all. Had it been the case those mythical impact assessments would have been the first port of call. In fact here we are 18 months down the road and the impact assessments are still nowhere to be seen.

Only 41% want to brexit now, time to vote again asap

Schedule a referendum according to what the polls are doing?

What if this one comes out "wrong" too? Best of three?

I'm not keen on the banana republic tone some of you onsessives are adopting. Why not just rig the whole thing?

Just to answer one point.

In brief

Claim

The EU referendum was “advisory” only.

Conclusion

The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.

"The [EU] referendum was an advisory referendum”

Dominic Grieve MP,10 October 2016

“This was not an advisory referendum”

John Redwood MP,7 November 2016

Given that the meaning of the French Revolution is still contested, it’s no surprise that there are arguments over June’s EU referendum.

The word “advisory” crops up a lot in the debate at the moment. Here we’ll look what people mean when they say that the referendum was, or wasn’t, advisory.

Start with the law

The referendum was not legally binding. TheEuropean Union Referendum Act 2015didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one.

Full text of that bill is here for anyone who is bored

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents

I'll also refer you to the attached photo.

We entrust our elected MP's to make decisions in our best interests - if they see the terms of the deal are not in the publics best interests, they have a duty and an obligation to vote against it.

We can have all the referendums we like on this - and the results can be disregarded by those who make the decisions each and every time

Bolshybookworm - but immigration is most definitely a factor and by not allowing anyone to discuss it without labelling them xenophobic or racist or by denying it because it did not affect YOU the people who did feel the effects have no way of being heard. And their problems persist

Democratic vote = job done

The only lesson to learn here is that having referendums on topics that people don't fully understand is pretty stupid.

But I have also seen many many many example of people in their 60s and 70s telling younger people that (a) they know best because they remember what it was like before 1973, as if that is in any way relevant to life in 2017, (b) that younger people should respect them purely because they are older and "wiser", and (c) that "we didn't fight the war to be ruled by Germany".

You do realise that most of the generation that fought Germany are dead right? I find it extremely hard to take anything you say seriously if you can't do the two plus two is four, minus one that's three, quick maths to work out that the very youngest soldiers at the end of WWII would have been 87 last year and therefore their influence on the referendum negligible.

Also, the EU (or EEC or EC etc, etc) in 1973 or 1986 or 1997 wasn't a completely different animal from the EU in 2016. To say that things were better doesn't even have to refer to 1973. I used to be a complete Europhile at some points in the EUs history but not by 2016. I don't remember what it was like pre 1973 because I wasn't born until the very late 1970s. But I remember what it was like before we had the EU in the form it was in 2016 and yes, it was better.

I do think that younger people do lack some perspective on the EU in it's current form because they don't have a point of reference for what things were like before that.

I have walked around the area of London where my parents live with my niece who is 18. At the moment ordinary family houses hover around the £750k mark. Flats around £400-500k. I can point out those houses where 20 years ago the householders were a builder and a housewife. The flats that a shop assistant and a waiter used to share. Nowadays those houses are occupied by top level city workers and stockbrokers and a waitress couldn't even dream of renting a cupboard there nor a builder even think of renting a room let alone bringing up a family in a home.

And what happened to make it that way? 13 years of Labour government and an expanding EU.

And we have all these oh so clever young people telling us we need more left wing politics and more EU to solve these problems but they caused it in the first place.

I don't agree with EltonJohn about the causes of the housing crisis. Like I said, I graduated into the financial crisis which was only a couple of years after the big EU expansion of 2004 and prices were already sky high then.

Not only have you conveniently forgotten about the financial crisis, you appear to have forgotten a few other things as well:

1. The plague of buy-to-letters.
2. Huge investment in London property by wealthy non-resident Russians, Chinese, Arabs etc (which means entire neighbourhoods in central London are full of huge houses sitting empty).
3. Thatcher's right-to-buy policy and failure of successive governments to build new social housing.
4. Interest rates being at historic lows for nearly a decade, meaning that people who have mortgages have benefitted hugely at the expense of people trying to save to get on the ladder.
5. Difficulties with the planning system and NIMBYs (mostly baby boomers who don't want their view spoiled) preventing new development.

Just before the referendum I was trying to buy a property on a single salary as my OH is foreign and we were thinking he would come here to live with me. I was on a salary of £45-50k, which is pretty good, right? And I'd saved up a decent deposit by living with my parents (which was indeed a hardship, but I was lucky to have the option.)

Every time I put an offer in on a property I was getting outbid, and it wasn't Polish plumbers outbidding me. It was buy-to-letters rushing to get in before the SDLT rate for second properties went up, and sometimes other people my age with two salaries or a bigger deposit. (I suspect BOMAD or an inheritance usually involved, as is the case for most of my friends who have bought properties.)

I'm not saying that increased immigration doesn't put pressure on housing stock. It does - of course it does. But we actually have a lot of houses sitting empty as "investments" or holiday homes, and that has a knock on effect on everybody else.

Now I'm a lucky person and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who had a professional job and was living in the south east. But let's be honest, if I couldn't get on the ladder in my - frankly - privileged position, then people on low incomes have got no hope, and the presence or absence of a million or so Eastern Europeans who are prepared to share bedrooms and send their money home and who mostly go home after a few years anyway is really not going to make a significant difference to an ordinary British person's ability to afford a home. Not compared to the other factors I've listed above.

Between 2008 and 2013 I spent a substantial part of my salary paying rent to a baby boomer who owned several properties and undoubtedly had very low interest mortgages, whilst I was desperately trying to save and earning fuck all interest on my savings. And even though my bank balance and my salary were gradually going up, buying the flat I was living in was far more out of reach for me at the end of those five years than it was at the beginning. It rankles, it really does.

So no, I'm not buying the "it's all because of immigration" line. We need to look much closer to home for the source of the problem.

And what when we revote?

If Brexit wins will that be it?

If remain wins will anything actually change?

Who says that only 41% of people want Brexit?
Nobody I know was asked.
You mean a newspaper ran a poll? Hardly representative of all those eligible to vote

EltonJohnsSyrup conveniently left out the global economic crash.

The global economic crash was just that. Global. If the problem of stagnating wages and declining living standards, particularly in terms of housing, were because of the global crash they would have been global problems. But they're not. They're not even universal problems in the EU. The extent they are at in the U.K. is unique to the UK.

Plus issues with the cost of housing date back to at least 2000 and stagnating wages to 2005. Both well before the economic downturn.

Also, the increase in the age of living which has a much greater impact on housing costs than migration. That's not to blame people for living longer but successive governments have ignored the effects that longer life for the majority of the population have had on housing (and pensions!).

Absolute rubbish. Longer lives would only have an impact on availability of housing if birth rates remain static. They didn't. They fell. Hugely. So without immigration we would have had a big surplus of housing, not a shortage.

Japan has a much longer living population than us but virtually no migration and had not faced these problems.

Easier to blame everything on immigration as there's a quick fix for that. Plus, the xenophobic population of the UK laps it up. It's a win win for politicians- means they can ignore some entrenched and complex problems whilst whipping up support via populist means.

No. Easier for you to blame difficult questions you have no answer for on xenophobia than answer those questions.

Your responses above are either the result of ignorance or downright lies because neither holds water on even the briefest of inspection.

LoveinTokyo I am aware people are having to stay at home and save

The point is that was the norm for most working class

Having re-read this thread again, my verdict:

LoveInTokyo has won this one.

Tokyo, so most older people have experience of life before the EU and after and they predominantly voted leave. Younger people who have only ever experienced life within the EU voted to stay. Surely those who have experience of both are going to have more insight? And if it is those older people who have supposedly benefited the most from the EU because they can get cheap workers as nannies, cleaners etc and their house prices/BTLs have gone up in price, why would they vote leave? Perhaps it's not actually all about money/cost of living but about people feeling their communities and cultures have been diluted and a loss of identity?

Free movement has certainly created lots of disparate cultures with not much glue to bind them to the host nations people and culture.It might be idealistic to have lots of different people and cultures with the idea that this creates "multiculturalism" but in practice if they don't really mix much and stay in their own little groups, how does the host nation benefit culturally and socially? Free movement tends to benefit big business which gets cheap labour all subsidised by others. They are the ones who love FM because it pushes down their labour costs and increases profits.

Sigh.

I can tell you're going to think you know best, no matter what I say. But here we go.

1. The effects of the global financial crisis are not unique to the UK. Far from it. I don't even know why you would make that argument. But it certainly did contribute hugely to stagnating wages here in the UK.

1. Stagnating wages are only half the story. Wages would have to have absolutely skyrocketed to keep pace with house price inflation. And as I have already pointed out, there are many, many factors causing rampant house price inflation which are not linked to immigration and which you have chosen to ignore.

1. The falling birth rate is not actually a good thing because we will need a big enough working population to support all these elderly people who are living much longer. That means we either need people to have more babies or we need, that's right, immigration. Why are people having fewer babies anyway? Maybe it's because they can't afford a big enough house to raise them in. I mean, when you struggle to buy a one bedroom flat by the time you're 30 and then you can't afford to upsize, and you DEFINITELY can't afford to raise a family on a single salary, then you can't really start popping out babies like there's no tomorrow, can you?

1. Japan. Lol. Tokyo is one of the most densely populated cities in the world but their economy is quite unique and they also had a MASSIVE, MASSIVE PROPERTY CRASH in the 1990s from which they have not yet recovered.

Oh and EltonJohn?

This:

"You do realise that most of the generation that fought Germany are dead right? I find it extremely hard to take anything you say seriously if you can't do the two plus two is four, minus one that's three, quick maths to work out that the very youngest soldiers at the end of WWII would have been 87 last year and therefore their influence on the referendum negligible."

This is literally what I was saying. Of course they didn't fight in the bloody war, but some of them seem to think they did.

I find it extremely hard to take anything you say seriously when you misread what I've written and proceed on the basis that I've said the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Is it though mirai? I'd be willing to have a conversation about the impacts of immigration if it actually relied on facts and evidence rather than shouty bollocks about them taking all our jobs. Saying that our country has complex problems of which immigration is one small part- fine. Saying it's all the fault of immigration and we should destroy our economy to stop it- xenophobic.

I can't be arsed with the leaver "how dare you call me xenophobic" stance. Xenophobia was a significant part of both the campaign and vote for Brexit. That's just a fact. I'm so tired of it being the elephant in the room and I personally refuse to dance around it.

Like I said, I graduated into the financial crisis which was only a couple of years after the big EU expansion of 2004 and prices were already sky high then.

It was four years after. Almost half a decade. And problems with housing were almost instant. Romania and Bulgaria had also joined by then. Your claim that housing prices in 2008 can't have been affected by events in 2004 are, quite frankly, laughable. 1. The plague of buy-to-letters.

Buy to letters only exist because it is a good investment. And why is it a good investment? Because they have an endless self replenishing and growing market of customers prepared to pay increasingly high prices for an increasingly inferior product. To blame the problems on 'but to letters' without looking at why they exist or can get away with it is again, laughable.

2. Huge investment in London property by wealthy non-resident Russians, Chinese, Arabs etc (which means entire neighbourhoods in central London are full of huge houses sitting empty).

This is one part of the country. In a very niche market. It's also a very recent phenomena. To blame the housing crisis which has been going on since the early 00s on something which has been happening for a couple of years in a tiny area of the country - laughable.

3. Thatcher's right-to-buy policy and failure of successive governments to build new social housing.

You do realise that when council houses were bought they weren't instantly razed to the ground don't you? They remain part of the housing stock. Right to buy is irrelevant to the general availability of housing because that housing is still used. Building more housing. Well that's only something that is needed because our population is growing. And why is it growing? ONLY BECAUSE OF MIGRATION!!

4. Interest rates being at historic lows for nearly a decade, meaning that people who have mortgages have benefitted hugely at the expense of people trying to save to get on the ladder.

Doesn't change the amount of housing available. Also, stagnating wages have been one of the biggest barriers to younger people being able to get on the housing ladder. And houses getting more expensive as wages stagnate and demand grows. Because why? Migration.

5. Difficulties with the planning system and NIMBYs (mostly baby boomers who don't want their view spoiled) preventing new development.

And why do we need all these new houses building MIGRATION!

You can go round the houses and blame it on whatever you want. But it all comes down to migration. We have a housing and wages crisis because of migration.

I find it extremely hard to take anything you say seriously when you misread what I've written and proceed on the basis that I've said the exact opposite of what I actually said.*

You didn't write it though did you? Apparently it was some invisible subtext we should all have instantly have picked up on when the much more obvious answer was you didn't actually have much idea.

Well EltonJohn we either need continued population growth - either through immigration or by supporting our existing population to have more children - and build enough housing for them to live in, or we need to start a euthanasia programme for the over 80s.

Which would you prefer?