We have heard and joked about it, but Canada is starting to look like an attractive alternative to our native homes. The chart shows no surprises but does put things into perspective. In the UK interest in a move is trending upward over the years but the actual number of people moving has been relatively flat. In the US interest has remained flat but more Americans than Brits are actually moving.
Well one reason might be that you're nearer to Canada than we are, so it's easier to go there and take a look round at what's on offer first. I have a friend there somewhere. She married a Canadian guy and settled into a place on a university campus where he works. Her parents tell me that she doesn't want to come back here. She's integrated into the Canadian way of life, is now entitled to work there, and loves it.
On the other hand, we have a friend in my home county who met his Canadian wife online. She came over here to get married, and several years on, they're still delightfully happy. She says she'd never go back!!
I don't think the graph's indicative of politics, but someone's just put comparisons together to make it look that way.
I can't. I'm not the one who gathers this sort of information, feeds it into a computer and compares it with any political event. Spikes of interest could be manipulated to fit in with any number of things.
However, on the supposition that there's some truth attached to the graph results, I'd still hesitate to hazard a guess. It could be sheer coincidence that the graph peaks at certain times. It could be that the number of British folk who fancied emigrating at a particular time didn't have the necessary level of skills required for the areas which they fancied moving to, although the visit to Britain by the Canadian minister could well've generated new interest. This's one of the jobs of these people, to act as ambassadors and to forge/encourage new trade deals, opportunities, etc.
I've no idea whether Donald Trump'd make a good President or not. The only thing that goes in his favour from a personal point of view, is that he seems to understand business, and that could be a good thing for your country. Whether leaving the EU'll turn out to be a good thing or not for us lot over here, remains to be seen. I'm not all that concerned, tbh. It sounds mercenary, but it's not like either way's going to have a massive impact on my life, and if folk fancy applying to live and work in Canada - or anywhere else - that's up to them.
I'm really not all that interested in politics, although I genuinely believe that the majority vote isn't going to end up as the catastrophe that some people think. Food prices'd dropped and although the pound's weaker atm, supermarkets aren't expected to start putting prices up until maybe the end of the year, junior doctors've been given a new satisfactory contract, giving them not quite the wage rise they wanted, but still 11% and other sweeteners, plus a hefty 37% rise when they do overtime. Petrol's going up, but only by about 2p a litre. We were used to paying a lot for it before pump prices fell right down, so it's no more than we had to get used to before. We'll see. Either way, the referendum wasn't going to suit all of the people all of the time, and I don't take too much notice of graph results, whether taken from surveys or any other means. Even if everything's accurate, there're far more important things in life than whittling about things which I can't change.
I am certain that you are not alone in your views. You and I both know that the more scientific thinkers among us realize that correlation does not prove causation. The best approach to analysis is to observe a phenomena and then try to explain it, which is much different than what most people do in Internet discussions. Comments in social networks are littered with preconceived notions that are justified by looking for phenomena to support those notions instead of the other way around. Members of Team Brexit must exhibit a type of denial when looking at the graphed data because it suggests something is amiss with their preconceived notions. If the chart only showed a correlation with a single event, some criticism might be warranted. But there are four peaks that correlate with current events and they occur in different places with different people. In other words the correlation is repeatable and possibly predictable.
"So what," you say. Fair enough. None of this may impact you personally. Revealing your thoughts is the point of having a discussion, is it not? My thoughts about the consequences of exiting the EU are not in favor of the idea. People today are indeed reacting, but the exit has not yet even begun. When it does occur, it will take a couple years to negotiate. Only at that point, when the exit is finalized, will any long term repercussions become evident. What you see now are reactions to what "might" happen. The real damage, or benefits, have yet to come.
I understand what you're saying to me Yogi, and I understand your reasons for not being in favour of the "Brexit". After a somewhat turbulent start (we're pretty much plodding in the dark, atm), I think things WILL be alright. By leaving Europe, we're not abandoning it altogether. No one can foresee how negotiations'll go once Article 50's submitted. In fact, lawyers're saying that "leave" can be triggered without the said Article, but I think that's highly unlikely to happen.
Our next PM has to accept us leaving Europe, but pull the sides together in a way which'll be helpful, not antagonistic. Neither runner for the position seem to have a firm plan in place yet, but mandates'll have to be drawn up pretty swiftly. The voters who won the majority weren't complaining about the policies which the "Remains've" been touting in their sour-grape, petulant vision, but against the abhorrent austerity measures which ordinary - and low-paid workers've been forced to accept. The unprecedented use of food kitchens's taken us back to Victorian times, people've had their homes taken from them, disabled people've had their benefits slashed or withdrawn, despite the fact that hospital consultants've had to fill in forms attesting to the claimants' health issues. Although neither leaving nor remaining in Europe would've impacted on my life in any way, I champion the people who've had to live in poverty and misery for so long. It's been all very well to make sweeping changes to their lives. Those who had the power to do so simply moved on and didn't suffer any of the anguish and devastation that these moves created. There were better ways of saving money, had the problem been sorted out more thoughtfully, but easy options were targeted.
Meanwhile, the crunch came with immigrants being allowed into our country who could breeze in, have all their paperwork sorted before arrival and move straight into properties - some of which our own'd had to vacate for that purpose! Understandably, this upset a lot of people. The unfairness of the situation gave rise to people in other countries looking at us and thinking that we were just a bunch of cold-hearted racists. You get folk like that everywhere, but over-all, migrants've been more than welcomed and looked after here. No one says they shouldn't be allowed to try and improve their lives, but when it's at the expense of British people who've probably had to work for peanuts and had all their rights taken away from them, you can understand why the plans were frowned upon, and because there's been a majority win for the "little people", it might make the government realise that the masses're capable of fighting back when they've had enough. There's also the serious question of National security when you allow thousands upon thousands of unchecked people onto a tiny island.
Having looked at the peaks on the graph again, I digress. It DOES seem that huge spikes appeared during certain events. I'm not going to attempt to explain them, but yes, I hadn't really studied it closely enough at first, so you're probably quite right in your thinking. I still think that many people're over-reacting to the situation though, and my thoughts're echoed by some government advisers and ministers. We can only wait and see, but I'm sure that we'll go forward no matter what.
Well there was the EEC before that (the European Economic Community). I think Britain joined the EU in the early 70's. I doubt if Brits used every day computers back then! LOOOOOL!
I have a friend I talk with on-line every Saturday afternoon.
He would like to see the UK independent of EU, but thinks they should have spent more time preparing for such to take place, so it doesn't cause such a rift in their industries.
In his mind, the big issue is the EU open borders policy, and the problems it has already caused in France.
I may be wrong, but I don't think free travel among the European countries, like we have here in the States, was meant to allow for free immigration between countries. But from this side of the big pond, free travel, although great, seems to have caused free immigration to run amok and totally out of each countries control.
I honestly think all governments, including our own, have gone well beyond what powers they were supposed to have available to them. They were supposed to govern what elements they were assigned to govern and not become control freaks and try to usurp the power of the people, states, or nations over their individual affairs. We saw this with our own government, and with the EU over their member nations. We want out of the UN ourselves, because of their over-reaching powers in things they have no business getting involved in.
Well Gary, it's kind of a complex issue, but as some ministers're saying - there are always some who try to forecast doom and gloom, when at the moment, there's not a lot of it around.
I don't care for Theresa May, but she's looking like a strong contender as PM. I'll give her her due though - she was on the "Remain" side, but says that if she gets the job, another referendum's totally out of the question, because the people decreed that they'd had enough, and she'll abide by the decision, whether now or in the future. She seems to understand what some of the gripes were about, and she's "promised" to turn conservative policies around and help all classes of people. She also understands the errors which David Cameron's party made, and the fact that they put the economy before the people. She's absolutely right there. Whoever's the next PM needs to have people on their side. The happier the public are, the more they'll back whoever's in charge and accept new rules and regulations. Theresa wants to lessen austerity measures which were imposed, and she's already looking at trade with countries that we didn't bother with much before, plus putting British-made items on the map again.
We'll see. Politicians say anything to win votes, but May's brought up specific areas of concern which Cameron ignored, and despite people grumbling, he totally ignored them. Hopefully, we'll be able to work with the countries which we have been doing, but we'll now have more say in how things're run, and what laws're passed. This's how it should be, with ANY country, not just us. Imagine how you'd have felt if, for years on end, you were told what to do by foreigners, and they had the right to over-rule you. You'd have most likely gone up in arms about it (no pun intended) way before we did, but folk can only take so much. It's been a brave move, and a risky one, but British people have grit. We've got over 1000 years of history, of being involved in battles and hardship, and we've overcome it all with fortitude and a quirky sense of humour. I truly believe that being out of the EU WON'T be a catastrophe, but, the question of security against terrorism DOES need looking into. We need to deport people who shouldn't be here, very quickly, and toughen up the requirements for coming in, as well as keeping a very close eye on some folk who're here already. We also have. to get rid of our "free-for-all" image, and put money where it's most needed
Last edited by Icey on 11 Jul 2016, 22:07, edited 1 time in total.
The same is true for over here Icey. 1/3 of the population is trying to support the other 2/3 who can work but don't, because of the massive amounts of handouts they get.
At our last election we finally managed to get some republicans in office, and the second they were voted in, they turned tail and sided with the democratic parties wishes. In other words, they were democrats running on the republican ticket, based on the side they chose to align with after being elected.
LOL - politicians're a strange breed aren't they? It seems for once, as though Mrs. May'd like to throw out the old, and in with the new, and today, with the chance of her becoming PM looking better and better, she may just do that. Here's someone who realises that, as she's already said, people in government aren't like the people out on the street. They don't see the same problems because they've never had to suffer them. Now the woman wants all classes of people to benefit from reforms, and she'll try and put together a package which appeases rich and poor. This might mean saying "stuff the economy" for a bit, but in fact, something amazing's started to happen already.
Mr. Obama threatened to put us "at the back of the queue", but our stock market's booming, and we're being "besieged" by countries wanting to do business with us, including American companies that want to put us on the front row.
Mrs. May wagged her finger at doom mongerers yesterday, and said that EU leaders, including Angela Merkel "can only watch helplessly as Britain breaks free, while the Grand Project disintegrates before their eyes". If France and Italy leave as well, the whole EU plan collapses. However, it's far from how short-sighted politicians envisaged a Brexit was going to be. The opposite of what they feared's starting to happen, and once new political policies've been worked out, we hope to go forward with a new optimism, a new type of government and happier people. We'll see what happens. If it's all a grave mistake, then it'll be huge, but if it works out, other countries'll follow suit. It looks as though it's time for a colossal change.
People LOVE their Independence, and when BIG GOVERNMENT tries to take away their Independence, there will always be trouble.
The strides toward a One World Government has many more than just angry.
We the People want our country OUT of the UN, simply because they are trying to become dictators.
I'm not sure how your government works, but ours was never supposed to have any controls over the people whatsoever.
Each State in the US is Independent and makes their own laws. When many states all have the same laws, the states themselves elect to unify those laws throughout the nation, by going to the federal government, not to change the law, but to unify the law.
A simple example is the roads we drive on, use the same type of markings and signs in all states.
Also, our drivers license is recognized in all states we drive through. If you are licensed to drive in your state, then you are allowed to drive in any state with that license. The individual states still set the requirements and tests to obtain a drivers license in their state.
I think this is what drove countries to join the EU, to bring all the little countries under one umbrella, primarily for unification.
But from this side of the big pond, it looks to us like the EU is trying to do the same thing the UN is trying to do, TAKE OVER.
The EU should have secured the borders around the collective EU nations and not allowed free immigration. Maybe they don't, but that is what it looks like from this side of the big pond. Of course, we have a lot of room to talk with Obama bringing in all his Muslim Brotherhood friends and giving them high positions in government.
Oh well, I never did like talking Poly-TICKS, because it just gets my blood pressure up, hi hi...
Our Parliamentary system isn't like your House of Representatives (which I admit to not really understanding), and what we have as the conservative (Tory) Party isn't like yours either.
A World Government can never work for "average" people, wherever in the world they hail from, and there'll always be uprisings against any person or regime who wishes to have total control (power). A willingness to work with others, even if they have a different outlook, is what carries nations forward.
The UN, founded in 1945 is supposedly there to maintain international peace and security. I see that as working together for the good of us all, but unfortunately, with the US being a permanent member, she's probably been paying the highest contributions towards that maintenance. However, this's worked out on how much each country can reasonably add to the kitty, and with America being a very big country with more money than, for instance, the UK, then obviously she contributes more. This may seem unfair on the face of things, but if you look at it proportionately, we also pay a huge whack. I don't think anyone'd mind if the money went solely on peace-keeping, but it does more than that, such as providing humanitarian aid, and the mandatory contributions can seem unfair. Some of the poorer member countries pay next to zero. I believe there's an obligation to pay 0.0001% of a country's annual wealth into the UN coffers. The distribution means that richer countries like the US pay more than their fair share, and no, that isn't good.
The EU, by comparison, seems to consist of a few people in Brussels who have control of vast sums of money - much of which's seen as being continually wasted. One of their projects, is to fund the building and maintenance of a motorway in Italy's Mafia heartland. This road system was started 50 years ago, and so far, the EU's thrown millions into it, as well as to fork out £300,000 simply to update its own logo! Taxpayer's money's been spent on this, as well as other projects in far-flung places, such as the islands off Madagascar, where further millions're being poured in to build a road on stilts, coming out of the sea. I'm sure that this ambitious effort is, or will be, physically awesome, but no one can justify giving away money like that which the workforce of each member country's paid into. I would've thought that contributions from the very wealthy lottery funds would've been used for that, and it's about time that THEIR spending was looked into as well. They receive millions every week, and just one week's income could pay for areas in arid places to be irrigated or have wells sunk. The need to dig deeply for water means that diesel generators, large electric pumps, piping, storage tanks and housing for it all can drive the cost up to $30,000 (or just under £23,000) for each one, but that's peanuts in comparison to the money they're raking in. They could afford to sink several wells in every African country if they wanted to. It makes you wonder who IS getting their hands on all this money....
Yes, governments, all governments, have a way of wasting vast percentages of the money they extort from the citizenry. And in almost all cases, it is for their own mutual benefit, and very little goes to help a cause.
A Perfect Example was our Mayor Bill Haslam's Ten Year Program to End Homelessness. A gimmick if I ever saw one!
The plan sounded good on paper, until you understood what was really going on.
The idea was to provide housing, clothing, food, and job training. Once a person was employed, they had to contribute 2% of their income back into the system, until they would be self-sustaining and could get their own place.
But what really happened?
The annual budget to help folks in this manner was ten million dollars. This is over and above what subsidies these individuals already received from welfare, food stamps, and other sources. The project was intended to help those who needed a step up.
At the end of the first year, Bill Haslam only helped FORTY-EIGHT people, and had spent the entire Ten Million dollars.
Do the math... Actual expenditures for those helped came to around 650 dollars per month per person.
Where did the $18,000.00 per month per person helped go?
Bill Haslam formed several committees to study and work on this project, and each committee member earned super high salaries, often in excess of $150,000.00 per year. Most of the committee members were relatives, friends, and other poly-TICK-ians he owed favors to, plus some contracting companies he held stock in.
Despite him pocketing almost all the money earmarked for this project, as well as several other tills he had his mitts into. The idiots here still elected him as our state governor.
Why is it that poly-TICK-ians on fixed salaries end up becoming multi-millionaires during their time in office?
I don't have to answer that one, I think we all know!
Yes, there's a ton of corruption in high places, and yet they slap the "little people" inside for cheating on their tax returns or some such crime.
In the UK, the witch-hunt's already under way, delving into profits made by charities, and checking up on what's actually been paid out to whom, and where. Some fraudulent cases've already been exposed, and the public're asking for more. The checking's also creeping into lower government offices. Councils're having to be more open about where all their money's going, and if projects aren't working, funding's being withdrawn. It'd be a huge task to eradicate all shady dealings, but big corporations're some of the worst culprits, along with ministers who have off-shore accounts. The latter, however, isn't going to be a safe haven in the future, as from 2013, new laws were brought in to govern how UK citizens ran their private Swiss bank accounts. Accounts held by individual UK taxpayers in Switzerland were made subject to a one-off levy of between 21 - 41%, depending on various factors, including how long the assets had been in Switzerland. The tax man was given access to these accounts, and the same might apply to folk who have accounts in the Channel Islands, or, further afield in time. Panama seems to be one of the best tax havens for people, but who knows what'll happen in the future?
The Gold Reserve Act of 1933 prevented Americans from owning more than $100.00 in gold coins.
It also outlawed the owning of Gold in any other form, or owning or trading gold with other countries.
You could keep a modest amount of jewelry and collectible coins.
Some of these restrictions were relaxed in 1964, and all restrictions were lifted in 1974.
However, Obama, by executive order, has once again made it illegal for citizens to own gold.
This is why the most wealthy with large caches of gold are bailing out of the US as fast as they can.
Our fiat dollar is now basically worthless, and is soon to go the way of the confederate dollar.
Obama is doing everything possible to destroy this country as fast as he can.
And the confiscation of gold is like the final straw, which would leave everyone totally helpless to provide for their families.
I'm stopping here before I blow my top again at what all is going on over here.
