Johnny Bognor

Indeed. The remain argument made no reference to where the EU is going. It was played as the safe option/status quo, which is clearly a load of ********

... and staying in the EU and what that means is as unpredictable as leaving. Where the EU is now, wasn't predicted 40 years ago. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Which is no different to being in the EU with no idea of where it will end up... Federal state of Europe? 2 speed Europe? Euro failing? EU falling apart? More countries? More legislation? More power? EU army? Disbanding of Nato? Who knows? All we do know is that change within the EU has been continuous and that it won't stop anytime soon. It's never stood still.. So basically we've swapped one uncertainty for another... unless you could tell me what staying in the EU would look like???

Because if you want social justice, you won't get it with Corbyn. Get a proper leader, then take it to may. Quite simple really... Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I lived in Madrid as a child and Paris during my teens as my Dad worked all over Europe. I went to the British School of Paris in the early 80's. Didn't need the EU to do that back then, so it shouldn't stop you going forward. Anyway, I hear there's loads of jobs going in Spain, Greece and Italy, especially if you're young. Just to feel truly connected to the Europeans, I suggest putting your life savings in Monte dei Paschi, as there's probably not a safer bank right now.

I think a distinction needs to be made between what people would want and what they are prepared to accept. I think most people would want unfettered access to the Single Market, but some are not prepared to accept what goes with that. I personally would want to have my cake and eat, who wouldn't? But I would be prepared to accept a Clean Brexit. That, I think, would be the starting position of a UK govt. It's then over to the europeans...

Or indeed unemployed, as most youngsters in southern Europe are. But hey, **** 'em. They're only the future.

It seems most people in Europe disapprove of the EU's economic policy...

This makes a lot of sense and would be for it

Point of order. There was no referendum join the common market. We joined and after two years, had a referendum to remain. Less than 50% of the population and less than 50% of the registered voters opted to remain.

Very good, but it still doesn't tell me where it's all heading.

Please define current arrangements oh wise one???? The EU/EEC has not stood still in 40 years, or were you naive enough to think everything would remain exactly the same indefinitely??? (Hint: there is no status quo, never was and never will be, me old pedigree chum)

Some remainers wanted to remain part of the EU and all it stands for Some remainers, albeit not liking the EU, think the downside is worth it, to stay in the single market Some remainers perceive that a higher authority will keep the tories in check (particularly those of a left persuasion) Some remainers think that it is better the devil you know and think that their vote is one to maintain the status quo So just as there are multiple reasons for a vote to Leave, don't pretend that all remainers voted 'remain' for one reason and one reason only

They're just thick Italians...

Wes voted ukip once and you're making a big deal out of it, whilst you lefties not only voted for an illegal war in Iraq, but returned the war mongerors to power. Millions of innocent lives on your hands.... well done, I hope your proud. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Basically, he has taken the high point over 100 years ago, the midpoint in the 1960's and the low point in 2011. Then he has wrongly assumed this is a trend, which is below a GCSE level of statistical interpretation. It is not a straight line over this time period, as evidenced by including more data (i.e. not being selective by picking a couple of years). There was indeed a major fall between 1900 and 1991 (which was never in dispute). However, since 1991 there has been little movement (as clearly stated in multiple ONS documents). If you look at the trend of the last 25 years (which is a statistically significant time frame), it is virtually flat. He is wrong to assume that his "trend" (PMSL) would continue, because if it do, the average household size would eventually fall to zero. Since 1991, the fall in the average size of household is calculated as follows... Fall in average household since 1991 = 2.4-2.3 = 0.1 per household Represented annually = 0.1 / 25 years = 0.004 Represented as a percentage = 0.004 / 2.4 = 0.00166666% The difference between 0.001666% and 0.4% is massive, when looking at the number of homes required. If a 0.4% change requires 110,000 homes, then 0.001666% would require 450 homes. Therein lies my view that the numbers are overstated.

OK, let's recap... Ignoring the chart (which clearly shows that there is no longer a decline) as I won't bore people with it again, let's look at the facts... Quote: “The average household size in 2011 in England was 2.36 people and in Wales was 2.31; this has remained stable over the last three decades”. Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/householdsandhouseholdcompositioninenglandandwales/2014-05-29 Quote: “average household sizes have changed little over the decade“ Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2015-11-05 Quote: “Average household size remains stable over the decade to 2016” Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016 Quote: “Average household size in 2011 is unchanged from 2001” Source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf As for the "little" comment, you don't really want to go down that road, because you'll lose that one as well LOL

The first link you posted, was this:. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536702/Household_Projections_-_2014_-_2039.pdf It covers England only. The second link was for the UK (quoted above). Then you accuse me of not know the difference between England and the UK!!!! Anyway, for the umpteenth time, why did you exclude 1991 and 2001 from your analysis???? I'm waiting... tick tock tick tock

You know the difference and are using it to prove some theory about something that doesn't exist. Again, why exclude 1991 and 2001 from your analysis? (An analysis that is at odds with the facts and numerous statements made by the ONS.) I think we now all know the answer

Hahahaha brilliant. So I am being selective? Are you really sure about that? My chart, sourced from the ONS covers every census since 1911. That's right, EVERY census. It is the most complete and accurate picture as to what is going on. You could argue that as Scotland may leave the UK in the future and so should be excluded, but that wasn't my intention. I picked the chart as it was published by the ONS and covered EVERY census, unlike your unscientific plucking random years to prove a point that exists in your head. You cherry-pick (i.e. are being selective) 1901, 1961 and 2011 and deliberately omit the years in between. Why exclude 1991 and 2001? Is this because it shows that the fall is leveling off? The ONS repeatedly states on numerous bulletins that the average household has been stable for over a decade, yet you choose to ignore this because it doesn't suit you. Damn those liars down at the stat office PMSL Back to being selective over geography, the report you linked to show projections only considers England, whereas previous to that you were looking at the UK. No, of course your not being selective in a deliberate attempt to either mislead or dig yourself out of a hole LOL Now let's look at births vs deaths. Why the last 4 years? Why not 5? Why not 3? If we look at the last 3 years, you appear to be overstating things... [TABLE=width: 296] [TR] [TD]Year[/TD] [TD]Deaths[/TD] [TD]Births[/TD] [TD]Difference[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2013[/TD] [TD]506,790[/TD] [TD]698,512[/TD] [TD]191,722[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2014[/TD] [TD]501,242[/TD] [TD]695,233[/TD] [TD]193,991[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2015[/TD] [TD]529,655[/TD] [TD]697,852[/TD] [TD]168,197[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Total[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]553,910[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Average[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]184,000[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 2]Source of Deaths[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 4]http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathregistrationssummarytablesenglandandwalesreferencetables[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 2]Source of Births[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 4]http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2015[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So I picked 2015 and you spout off that it is an exception to the rule. Well smartie pants, after looking at the last 3 years, they appear to reflect my ascertion that you are overstating things. So it doesn't look like I was being that selective after all... unlike some LOL

In your analogy as to the impact of immigration on housing, you took account of Brits moving to the EU, subtracting this number off the net EU immigration estimate. Then you didn't take account of Brits emigrating outside the EU and remove this from the net non-EU immigration figure. Therefore, you are overstating the number of homes required to allow for non-EU immigration. You also overstated the difference between births and deaths significantly. Again you are misrepresenting what's going on. Why not include the 2001 census? Is it because this shows that the fall in household size is in fact slowing up? While we are at it, why not consider the 1991 census. In fact, when you do, it is clear that average household size has hardly moved in the last 25 years... Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/householdsandhouseholdcompositioninenglandandwales/2014-05-29 Average household size has fallen considerably in the past, but for the last 25 years, it has pretty much remained the same.

1. What about British nationals that emigrate to non EU countries? A massive omission from your calculations. 2. According to the LATEST 2016 report from the liars at the stat office... http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016 Average households are 2.4 and haven't changed in a decade (see point 7) You using out of date reports to make things up doesn't make me a helmet BTW, what it makes you, I will leave for others to decide. I can't see your pedigree bum chum (see what I did there) coming to your rescue on this one...

Slight misrepresentation. If we are looking at the CURRENT housing crisis (note the CAPS) then the impact of non-EU immigrants is no different to EU immigrants, as both nett amounts are similar. But you didn't compare like for like. If you are now saying that the impact of leaving the EU will impact the number of Brits that can live in the EU, can you not see that this will also effect the number of EU immigrants that can live in the UK?? Therefore the nett WILL change and will 'probably' reduce the impact on housing, bearing in mind those brits could go to more popular desitnations like Australia, USA, Canada Looks like you've been caught with your pants down and are trying to snake your way out of it (and that's without pointing out that size of household hasn't changed in a decade, despite your claim otherwise)

Oh but Timbucktoo comparing nett EU immigration to total non-EU immigration is OK with you???? I expected more from you, me old pedigree chum

Meanwhile we have a prominent remainer on here, who is skewing the figures on immigration to make it look like non-EU immigrants are causing a bigger problem with the housing crisis, compared to EU immigrants, when ONS figures show that they are almost at parity....