The percentage of foreign-born residents in London is 36.7% [ONS Excel sheet], not “approaching 50%”.
The percentage of EU-born residents in London is 8.7%, or c.1/4 of the foreign-born population.
There is a housing crisis in London. Membership of the EU has got hee-haw to do with it, and leaving the EU will do hee-haw to solve it. The population of the capital is not going to fall radically because we leave the EU; the rate of housebuilding is not going to increase.
Well, it could help if it kicks of a worldwide financial crisis which leads to less demand for global banking…
Nonsense. Of course the percentage is lower if you choose to include the wealthier, leafy Conservative suburbs. Oddly enough, economic migrants move to poorer areas, not least because their community is already there!.
How many are over 50% now, 5, 6, 7?
The EU has to impose one as it’s a WTO requirement. If it left a border open just to accommodate the UK’s failure to think about the GFA, then it’s obligated to do that for everyone it trades with.
Similarly, the idea that the UK can simply declare the border open is laughable naive. As a WTO member, it would have to do that for every trading partner.
It won’t, of course, because grownups know that if you leave a customs union, you need a means to check the contents of vehicles to ensure the goods entering the country comply with your laws.
Absolutely not. I remember distinctly Leave’s deliberate silence on precisely what kind of arrangement it wanted with Brexit. Whenever Remain warned that Leave’s demands of leaving Free Movement meant leaving everything, Leave simply kneejerked scaremongering to everything. They never committed themselves to anything specific about what they wanted - just what they didn’t want.
The Leave campaign has been amazingly successful again since the referendum in retconning the result to be one for a hard Brexit outside the Single Market. In no uncertain terms, they did not make that plain in the vote, and indeed, if I were charitable, I’d say many envisioned an EEA-like solution. Hannan himself at the very least did.
If I weren’t charitable - and I’m not in the mood to be on this matter - the Leave campaign were deliberately vague so they could hoover up as broad a church of votes as possible to win, without any consideration of what that meant after they won.
Where on earth do you get this impression? It’s already in law that future EU treaty changes would require a referendum. Even then, many Remainers - myself included - are happy to be in the EU and continue to be a pain in the arse and anchor the EU as much as possible into an international organisation. The idea that a Remain vote means full endorsement of a federal Europe is utter scaremongering rubbish.
Indeed, if the result were narrowly for a Remain victory, I can see it very easily interpreted as a vote for the practical benefits of EU membership but a thorough rejection of much more. It’s the shock of the Leave victory that has led everyone to declare this - with zero basis - as a vote for hard Brexit.
The 1975 vote made it clear that there was always a political element to EC/EU membership. You’re making a fallacy of assuming that everyone campaigning in 1975 had full knowledge and information about what the EC/EU would be like in 1992. That’s absurd. Especially given much of the changes to the EU since 1975 were down to UK agitation.
1975 to 1992 is a very, very long time. 2016 to 2017 or 2018 is not. Leave knowingly lied and are retconning the result and lying about what they said.
You said London, so I thought you meant London. My mistake.
Don’t you think you should know this stuff, given that it’s **your **position that migration is excessive and that the EU is to blame?
Inner London: Three - K&C (51%), Westminster (53%), Newham (56%). Of which, EU-born residents contribute, as a share of the total population, 16%, 18% and 17%, respectively (i.e., c. 1/3 of the foreign-born pop.). Looking at just K&C which has a mix of wealthy and poor areas, it’s striking that France, Germany and Italy each contribute more residents than Poland, Romania and Bulgaria combined. If I had to bet on what a Frenchman living in Kensington and Chelsea wore to work, I’d put a lot more money on a very nice suit than on cleaners’ overalls.
Outer London: Two - Brent (56%) and Harrow (51%). To which, again, EU-citizens contribute 16% in each. Also, Harrow has Tory MPs, so not sure it counts.
You can find the data here.
So, good news: EU immigration isn’t as high as you think, has a good balance of wealthier immigrants, and isn’t purely concentrated in the poorer areas of London. The bad news is that this means that problems caused by the pressure immigration puts on housing* won’t be solved by Brexit.
*Personally, I believe that even in the absence/massive reduction of EU immigration to London, pressure on housing will continue because London will just suck people in from somewhere else. It’s not the nationality of the people who come, it’s the number in relation to available housing.
A reminder:
“Uncontrolled mass immigration” from the EU…
…has in every year been smaller than non-EU immigration, over which we have absolute control.
And non-EU immigration will have to rise to replace the workforce we lose.
that was in 2011, well past the point of major E.U. changes that should have been put to the people. Too little too late. Of course if you think that such legislation is a good thing then it follows that you probably agree that previous treaties should have been put to the people?
I think it should have had its wings clipped many years ago. I don’t know what you mean by anchoring it as an “international organisation” though
Really?. If you don’t think a “yes” vote would be seen as a green light for accelerated integration then you have not been paying attention over the last 40 years. As far as the E.U. is concerned the answer is always “greater integration” and they merely apply it to every question and challenge that arises.
But you can’t reject “much more” and remain a member of the E.U. can you?
“everyone”? Are you missing the internal squabbles within the political parties on this very issue?
No, I’m clear that the government in 1975 did not forsee how it would turn out, nor did the voters and it is absolutely right that, given the major change in scope and scale of the E.U. project, further referendum were needed.
Other countries had those safeguards in place much earlier and those have been used in anger. I expect you don’t berate them for having those?
This has been the only chance that the UK public have had to voice approval or disapproval on the E.U. project and it was too late and too broad.
fwiw, 50% is obv a random and arbitrary number. But what it is is a huge percentage of any population with equally immense repercussions. For example, where are the families who used to occupy that social housing stock, apart from in B&B.
The point being that the constitutional hurdles within the UK to make treaty changes that would lead to federalisation make such a thing too difficult, not that they were ever a threat anyway.
Nope. Direct democracy is ill suited to Britain at best and a terrible idea in general, personally.
I think moderates should have been much quicker to smack down the tin foil hat conspiracy theories of our more colourful eurosceptics and challenged them more openly, rather than tippy toeing around not wanting to have a row.
I refer to your comment about it becoming a federal superstate.
Of course not. Such a conclusion would be ludicrous and would be resisted by a great many Remainers, including myself.
I think part of the problem here is your use of ‘they’; the EU isn’t ‘they’ - it’s us. Treaty changes require the unanimous consent of every EU country individually. If we don’t want something, we say no.
The failure of the UK isn’t that the EU has dictated anything at all to us. It’s that a government that shows any enthusiasm for European cooperation, however practical, is inherently seen with suspicion by the right wing press and their patriotism put into question. So it forces British governments to shrink from defending the changes to the EU the UK itself has pushed for, further cementing this feeling of ‘other’.
Of course you can. If it’s not in the Treaty, then you block it as a proposal at the earliest stage where the proposal repels you. Or you secure opt outs. We’ve done it before, as has Denmark and I rely, and we can do it again.
You’re right, I shouldn’t say everyone. I should say those on the Leave campaign.
Perhaps, personally I have an inbuilt distaste for referendums as being difficult to reconcile with the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and accountability of public officials. But if they’re to work, they can’t be operated in the way that the 2016 (or 2014) votes were.
I can’t comment much on the particulars of how referendums function in other countries, but from what I understand of Ireland and Switzerland, they have constitutional provisions laying out he refendums are enacted and enforced. And it’s not unknown for results to be nullified if they can’t be carried out without major harm or unforeseen changes.
I can agree on the ‘too broad’ bit. Don’t know why it should therefore translate into leaving at all costs. I repeat, Leavers didn’t exclude EEA membership or some such as an alternative, but now reject it in the strongest terms without any basis.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Any thoughts on the Italian election … Mediterranean migration policy seemingly also influencing views of Brussels?
Yep, called the ‘After the Horse has Bolted Act’, or the EU Act 2011:
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/07/new-referendum-constitutional-requirement
Macron himself called for a more federal Europe and he is not alone, it is far from a minority view.
Of course “Fedaralisation” will never be put in a treaty in such an obvious way. It will be attempted step by step with incremental steps to centralisation. Classic boiling frog.
Also, If you don’t think the UK public were capable of coherent thought on as simple a concept as “in/out”, what makes you confident that decoding the implications of dense legaleese will lead them to a well-informed decision?
Resist how?
I use the word “they” for the EU in the same way as I use “they” for the UK government. And besides, for every “no” that we give some political capital will be extracted. In the aftermath of a remain vote the tolerance for a “no” would be greatly diminished. Nothing we do in regards to the EU comes cost-free.
That is not sustainable in a 28+ union. Opt-outs and blockages come at a price.
You mean the result is ignored or they are pressured to vote again until the “right” result is obtained?
This is verging on paranoid conspiracy theory territory here. You don’t seem to have faith yourself in the public or Parliament handling complicated issues, like you accuse me of below.
Perhaps this goes to show how bad an idea it was to put to a public vote. Such complicated things should be left to Parliament, and if put to a public vote, the final proposed models should have been put forward.
Resist in the same way any unpopular move is resisted in a democracy? As I said, much of the problem of where we are now is because various governments haven’t had the stones to stand up for what they support of the EU at home and instead shrink from any kind of defence of it.
So you’re a believer in the cake-and-eat-it philosophy?
The price being far less than withdrawing from the EU and the EEA entirely in the extreme Brexit were are heading towards. At least if we’re in and saying No, we have leverage. We were in, and had opt-outs. Now we’re out, and seeking opt-ins.
Yeah, that kind of tired old bullshit right there is what I find hilarious. It’s not true, and grossly misrepresents what happened. For many countries, by the way, measuring twice and cutting once on major issues put to public vote is a normal and wise thing to do.
Well, having read your whole post I really don’t think I can’t help you any further and your “conspiracy theory” accusation is arrant nonsense.
Macron said what he said, the founding members and architects of the E.U. said what they said, even our own government were well aware of what it meant to get into bed with the E.U. but deliberately hid it from the voters…sounds like a conspiracy theory but of course government documents released in 2002 prove it to be the case. FCO 30/1048 is an official document available for all to read under the 30 year rule and it shows exactly what the government of the time knew and suspected and what they sought to conceal. Not conspiracy, hard fact. I don’t necessarily think they were wrong to take that approach, realpolitik and all that but you have to accept that such an approach of subterfuge and misinformation was the way of E.U. business previously and it would be naive to imagine it is any less so now.
It is almost like you haven’t read anything about the creation and expansion of the E.U. over the last 60+ years, the modus operandi of the key figures, the aims of the founding members and the words contained in the treaties. It is all there, if you don’t think they meant what they said nor that the direction of travel for the E.U. is aligned towards that…as I say, I can’t help you.
No, no. They choose to vote again. What they have been voting on, remember, is an attempt to solve a problem or address an issue, and if the proposed solution/address has not been accepted, the problem or issue remains. So they renegotiate the solution, seeking amendments to address the concerns that have been raised, and then submit the amended solution to a new vote.
If they don’t want to do this, they don’t have to, and there are examples of countries voting down an EU proposal, leading to the death of the proposal.
Contrast this with how things are done in the UK, where two out of the four countries that make up the UK voted against Brexit, and were simply ignored. No attempt is made to modify the Brexit proposal to meet their concerns, they don’t get to vote again, and the proposal does not simply die. The government just proceeds with the proposal that they have rejected; they might as well not have bothered to vote at all, for all the difference it made.
That isn’t strictly true though is it? The treaties that were voted down by individual referenda were cosmetically enhanced and put to the vote again with some concessions given to individual countries. The substance of the treaties remained intact and the direction of travel continues. The E.U. does not take a backward step (though one might hope that the current issues with Brexit might give it pause for thought, I am hopeful but not expecting it)
The annoying thing is that the UK won’t be done with this issue, even if they get some sort of deal and exit the EU in 2019. Demographics will dictate that they’ll be another referendum and the UK will then seek to reenter the EU sometime in the 2020s. Then, the questions will be about on what terms and can the UK get the same special treatment it had? Now, I think it is quite reasonable to allow the UK to keep the pound sterling, as it is good that there are 3 strong currencies in Europe with the Pound, Euro, and Swiss Franc.
Perhaps the free movement of people won’t seem so bad if the UK economy lags behind the EU and people from the UK wish it to be easier to seek employment in EU countries.
Unfortunately, I don’t see the problem of migration into Europe from developing countries to ease anytime soon. Thus, the whole idea of borderless travel and Schengen will probably continue to be debated.
Which demographic changes will dictate another referendum?
Your “cosmetic enhancement” is another person’s material change. The changes were at least material enough to persuade a majority of voters that the amended treaty was desirable.
For example Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty in 1992, by a 50.2% majority on a turnout of 83.1%. The treaty was renegotiated, and some opt-outs given to Denmark, and in 1993 the Danes approved the renegotiated treaty by a 56.7% majority on a turnout of 86.5%. The opt-outs negotiated by the Danes endure to this day.
Similarly, Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2001 by a 53.9% majority, but approved an amended version in 2002 by a 62.9% majority (again, on a higher turnout and, again, the changes negotiated by Ireland are still in place).
No state is required to vote on any treaty a second time if they reject it the first time. France rejected the proposed European Constitution in 2005, as did the Netherlands. Neither state held a second referendum and the Constitution never entered into force.
Contrast this with the treatment afforded to Scotland, which voted to reject Brexit by 62%. They might as well not have bothered to vote at all; they could neither stop Brexit, nor secure any changes or modifications to the proposal.
Whatever causes a new general election resulting in a government willing to offer another referendum: i.e., nothing that is remotely likely before March 2019.
Jeremy Corbyn has returned to his incompetent form and has surrendered the political advantage that he briefly obtained with his support of remaining in a customs union after Brexit. His bumbling over Russia is pathetic.