Moderator: Peak Moderation
Then I don't understand your point. If houses can be built in south-east England (already overpopulated) then they can be built in rural Lincolnshire (not overpopulated). The reason fewer houses are built in places like rural Lincolnshire is that there is less demand for them, because there are fewer jobs, not because planning laws prevent it.clv101 wrote:This is all getting a bit silly, but I'll try and answer line by line.
Yes - houses can be built or people can live in mobile homes - but only within the existing planning laws. 'No borders' certainly doesn't say you can build a house outside the existing development plan or park up a caravan on the road side. No borders is only about allowing freedom of movement - not changing half the other laws of the land!UndercoverElephant wrote:If the problem is lack of houses then more can be built. Or people can live in mobile homes.clv101 wrote: I don't agree with this. It isn't about where people want to live - it's where people can live. His part of rural Lincolnshire doesn't have very many houses, or jobs etc. so it's hard to see how lots of additional people could move there.
But the point is surely that places like Sheffield do not, and CANNOT "pay their own way." The houses in Sheffield, Barnsley and Liverpool were built to house workers in industries that have largely moved to China and elsewhere a long time ago, and aren't coming back any time soon, unless you believe there is going to be an imminent revival in the British steel, coal and shipbuilding industries, or that Liverpool is once again going to become an important transatlantic port. The houses aren't there for any sensible, modern-day reason, but because of an "historical accident." That is why the economies of those places have to be driven by central government. And if the economies of Sheffield and Liverpool are going to be driven by central government, then why not build a load of houses next to Biff Vernon's idyllic part of rural Lincolnshire? What's the difference?Which is why I doubt many folks would move to the industrial north (or rural Lincolnshire) - 'no borders' certainly doesn't negate the need to pay one's way.UndercoverElephant wrote:And if the problem is jobs...well, there's no jobs in many parts of the UK which are already seriously overpopulated. The economy of much of the industrial north, for example, is now almost completely dependent (directly plus indirectly) on government money. And if that is the case in somewhere like Sheffield, then why not rural Lincolnshire?
I know that, but unfortunately we already know what has happened when this was extended to the EU, and it has been an unmitigated disaster. This was a classic example of politicians making decisions that were totally out of touch with reality, and with a blatant disregard for the people they are supposed to represent. Opening up limitless immigration from the EU just resulted in a large amount of people from poorer EU nations to come here, where they work for the minimum wage, or below it, forcing British people onto the dole, or at the very least making it much harder for them to get a decent job. This helps the employers and corporations, but shafts the ordinary people. In fact, this policy was such a disaster that it has now been recognised as a failure and steps have been taken to make sure that it is not repeated when even poorer nations join the EU.Yes! The same way rich folk from London can buy a farm in Northumbria. Or the German industrialist can buy a villa in Greece. We have 'no borders' within the UK, we also have 'no borders' within most of the EU. biffvernon is only suggesting we could extend this beyond the EU to cover the whole world.UndercoverElephant wrote:Erm...so rich people from another culture should be allowed to move to the UK, but people who are actually from the UK, but poor, have no such rights???I think he's simply saying anyone in the world should be able to buy (or rent) a house on his street, or yours, irrelevant of whether they have a British or EU passport. They would of course have to be able to afford the house/rent which likely means also finding employment.
]This is a strawman of your creation. It's nothing to do with if they want to live in the UK. Remember 'no borders' is about the abolition of national borders, not about some guy in Mali with $3 to his name moving to a 3 bed semi in Brighton!UndercoverElephant wrote:Reciprocity? Like we say "It is OK for limitless amounts of people from f*ck*d up, hopeless, backward hell-holes to come and live in the UK, if they want to, provided it is OK for limitless amounts of British people to go and live in f*ck*d up, hopeless, backward hell-holes, if they want to..."Key questions remain about whether population would actually increase much? It should also be obvious that 'no borders' is an aspirational concept - not a serious policy suggestion to be implemented unilaterally in the UK next week. There would have to be a degree of reciprocity.
I can see a problem with this plan.
Oh, that's handy, isn't it.biffvernon wrote:
Sorry, been a bit busy but I see clv101 has covered most of the points.
That's really rich coming from you. You use abusive tones and words when someone holds a view you don't agree with. Nobody holds an authority to claim an absolute right to having the correct view, so just allow others (not me) to hold a view that doesn't agree with yours, and respect their entitlement to hold it.UndercoverElephant wrote:If you've got a point, rather than just personal abuse, please post it. Both Steve and myself have made detailed rebuttals of Biff's position - we have explained exactly what we believe to be wrong with what he has posted. Your post above, in sharp contrast, is cheerleading - or rather it is "negative cheerleading." It is entirely contentless, and is consists entirely of having a personal dig at two other posters.woodburner wrote:It appears Steve and UE have been in close contact, as they appear to be suffering from the same affliction, resulting in intolerance of anything that doesn't suit their point of view. Maybe they should try a trial separation.
Sadly, this is what I have come to expect from you. Not all of your posts are negative and contentless in this manner, but quite a lot of them are.
Another contentless post.woodburner wrote:That's really rich coming from you. You use abusive tones and words when someone holds a view you don't agree with. Nobody holds an authority to claim an absolute right to having the correct view, so just allow others (not me) to hold a view that doesn't agree with yours, and respect their entitlement to hold it.UndercoverElephant wrote:If you've got a point, rather than just personal abuse, please post it. Both Steve and myself have made detailed rebuttals of Biff's position - we have explained exactly what we believe to be wrong with what he has posted. Your post above, in sharp contrast, is cheerleading - or rather it is "negative cheerleading." It is entirely contentless, and is consists entirely of having a personal dig at two other posters.woodburner wrote:It appears Steve and UE have been in close contact, as they appear to be suffering from the same affliction, resulting in intolerance of anything that doesn't suit their point of view. Maybe they should try a trial separation.
Sadly, this is what I have come to expect from you. Not all of your posts are negative and contentless in this manner, but quite a lot of them are.
I tend to agree with you, but I wouldn't be continually slagging off Biff because he has another view. Who's to say I'm right? Precious few on this forum, I expect you will agree.OK, reality check...
What is the context of this discussion?
Answer: we were talking about Egypt, and the fact that it is right on the edge in terms of being able to feed itself and of having a functioning economy. Basically, the outlook for ordinary Egyptians, most of who are of child-bearing age or younger, is DIRE. There is no hope for them, because Egypt has run out of exportable resources, cannot afford to import either the oil or the food that it requires to go on functioning and because its only decent prospect for earning foreign currency (i.e. tourism) is going down the pan for obvious reasons (i.e. who wants to go on holiday in a failed/failing state?)
So when you talk about "open borders" then you're talking about hundreds of millions of people with no hope and no future, and you're talking about relaxing immigration controls to the UK, which is already seriously overpopulated and facing a major crisis itself within the next 20 years.
And you wonder why we think your ideas are nuts????
Steve has already provided an example in this thread. You preach total disregard for the "communal property rights" of the non-property-owning British people (i.e. you are quite happy to allow anybody to come and settle here, safe in the knowledge that they aren't likely to settle anywhere near you, and that your own private property is safe). Yet you wouldn't even think about allowing anybody who wants to to come and settle on YOUR land. This is a prime example of "I'm alright Jack, F--k you!"biffvernon wrote:UE, could you find me just one example of "But when it comes to something that he thinks will effect him, then what he normally does is suddenly change his tune!!!" so that I can see what you're talking about?
I listened to the first half and got bored. Preaching to the converted. I do not need to be told that the human race is trashing this planet. I worked that out for myself about 30 years ago.What did you think of the Peter Owen-Jones talk?
I did not claim to have all the answers. However, I *do* try to be consistent and honest when I post, as well as in touch with reality rather than off on some idealistic whim. I certainly do not accept that "everything is mere opinion." Some of what is being discussed here comes down to ethical decisions which are indeed impossible to resolve with science and reason alone, and therefore do come down to a matter of opinion, sometimes nothing more than gut instinct or raw idealism. But a lot of it is determined by science, reason, history, or political and economic reality, and that is not mere opinion.woodburner wrote:I tend to agree with you, but I wouldn't be continually slagging off Biff because he has another view. Who's to say I'm right? Precious few on this forum, I expect you will agree.OK, reality check...
What is the context of this discussion?
Answer: we were talking about Egypt, and the fact that it is right on the edge in terms of being able to feed itself and of having a functioning economy. Basically, the outlook for ordinary Egyptians, most of who are of child-bearing age or younger, is DIRE. There is no hope for them, because Egypt has run out of exportable resources, cannot afford to import either the oil or the food that it requires to go on functioning and because its only decent prospect for earning foreign currency (i.e. tourism) is going down the pan for obvious reasons (i.e. who wants to go on holiday in a failed/failing state?)
So when you talk about "open borders" then you're talking about hundreds of millions of people with no hope and no future, and you're talking about relaxing immigration controls to the UK, which is already seriously overpopulated and facing a major crisis itself within the next 20 years.
And you wonder why we think your ideas are nuts????
If you have solutions to the world's problems there are more influential places you could be heard than PS.
UE, could you find me just one example of where I have said that? Nothing could be further from my thinking than the example you say Steve has provided.UndercoverElephant wrote:Steve has already provided an example in this thread. You preach total disregard for the "communal property rights" of the non-property-owning British people (i.e. you are quite happy to allow anybody to come and settle here, safe in the knowledge that they aren't likely to settle anywhere near you, and that your own private property is safe). Yet you wouldn't even think about allowing anybody who wants to to come and settle on YOUR land. This is a prime example of "I'm alright Jack, **** you!"biffvernon wrote:UE, could you find me just one example of "But when it comes to something that he thinks will effect him, then what he normally does is suddenly change his tune!!!" so that I can see what you're talking about?
That's a pity. I suggested paying particular attention to the part 7 minutes in, that's the second half, where he talks about nation states. I suspect he is not preaching to the converted as far as you are concerned but I may be wrong?UndercoverElephant wrote:I listened to the first half and got bored.What did you think of the Peter Owen-Jones talk?
If he is advocating the abolition of nation states then he is talking idealistic nonsense. You can only abolish nation states with the consent of the people of those states, and that consent can only be gained if there are actual functioning states in place to carry out the relevant referenda. In other words, if you can't hold a free election in places like Zimbabwe or Somalia, then you can't hold a free referendum there to establish the will of the people.biffvernon wrote:That's a pity. I suggested paying particular attention to the part 7 minutes in, that's the second half, where he talks about nation states. I suspect he is not preaching to the converted as far as you are concerned but I may be wrong?UndercoverElephant wrote:I listened to the first half and got bored.What did you think of the Peter Owen-Jones talk?
