EU immigration row / time to get out

[jonny2mad]

My definition of 'full' for any country would be the point at which the water supply ceases to be adequate. Yes, this country is overcrowded compared to others but most of it is inhabitable. That isn't always the case elsewhere.

Given no or limited growth and an increasing population I believe a decline in living standards is a given. The 'benefits' of migration are used to pay interest on loans HMG takes out to pay interest on earlier loans, prop up the standard of living and invest in 'infrastructure', usually overpriced road, rail or airport schemes, business enterprise zones where people are employed at low wages and treated poorly.

You can’t have it both ways a impoverished Britain, and a Britain that can still import loads of things.

from J2M

We will need to be able to do both in the not too distant future. If China does stop buying US debt as some suspect that could be next year...

We may need to do both but we won't, thats why I'm stocking up on pop corn, and getting out my old rocking chair
I don't believe anything will be done to stop mass immigration we will go into collapse like a overloaded divided liferaft with the fluffy in charge.

voting for anybody wont stop that, its going to be mighty entertaining

[Little John]

My definition of 'full' for any country would be the point at which the water supply ceases to be adequate. Yes, this country is overcrowded compared to others but most of it is inhabitable. That isn't always the case elsewhere.

Given no or limited growth and an increasing population I believe a decline in living standards is a given. The 'benefits' of migration are used to pay interest on loans HMG takes out to pay interest on earlier loans, prop up the standard of living and invest in 'infrastructure', usually overpriced road, rail or airport schemes, business enterprise zones where people are employed at low wages and treated poorly.

You can’t have it both ways a impoverished Britain, and a Britain that can still import loads of things.

from J2M

We will need to be able to do both in the not too distant future. If China does stop buying US debt as some suspect that could be next year...

I agree, an adequate water supply is an absolute basic requirement. Speaking of which, how adequate do you suppose that supply would be, viv-a-vis our current population's requirements, in the event of a major global energy supply shock due to global economic embargos or overt global military conflicts?

Such conflicts are coming. They are inevitable in a world of diminishing resources relative to population requirements. There will be supply shocks as a consequence. The last thing we should be doing is promoting further increases in our population.

Hell, we need to reduce our populations in order to prepare for what's coming.

[jonny2mad]

the population will reduce itself just make sure that your not one of the reduced

[AndySir]

I agree, an adequate water supply is an absolute basic requirement. Speaking of which, how adequate do you suppose that supply would be, viv-a-vis our current population's requirements, in the event of a major global energy supply shock due to global economic embargos or overt global military conflicts?

Such conflicts are coming. They are inevitable in a world of diminishing resources relative to population requirements. There will be supply shocks as a consequence. The last thing we should be doing is promoting further increases in our population.

Hell, we need to reduce our populations in order to prepare for what's coming.

Given that you seem to be supporting UE's assertion that Britain is FULL it would seem that you should be the one answering these questions, rather than demanding its challengers provide definitions of 'not full'. Of course, given I am a poor debater and wouldn't be able to tell an onus probandi from a hole in the ground...

On shocks... I would suggest that the EU is the biggest single defense against the kind of shocks you assert are inevitable. This being it's original intention. By increasing our free trade and movement zone we increase our resilience to catastrophe.

Another way of looking at the question of population density is to say that the area in which we are free to live and work has now decreased from 117 people/km^2 to 112 people/km^2 (population density of the EU before and after expansion including Bulgaria & Romania - roughly.)

[woodburner]

The problem is that it appears most migration is to the more densely populated areas. I doubt there will be a great influx into Bulgaria or Romania. This makes the point about overall population density irrelevant.

Fresh water supply in the south east is now critical, as can be witnessed by reservoir levels in the recent dry summers. Moving water from other parts of the country is not an option as it will damage local ecosystems. If you think it is ok, then you do not understand that even humans have to live in an environment that considers other species. Therefore the south east at least, is full.

[biffvernon]

My definition of 'full' for any country would be the point at which the water supply ceases to be adequate.

One might have solar-powered sea-water distillation. Fullness is mitigated by techie-fixes.

I happened to be in the shopping mall at the base of Canary Wharf a few days ago (as one does). It seemed pretty full to me but everyone was moving about quite peaceably and I presume many of them volunteered to go there every day. I didn't stay long.

Time for a poetry performance from a mathematician:
http://www.upworthy.com/next-time-someo ... -them-this

Thanks Hollie
http://holliemcnish.com/

[Little John]

My definition of 'full' for any country would be the point at which the water supply ceases to be adequate.

One might have solar-powered sea-water distillation. Fullness is mitigated by techie-fixes.

I happened to be in the shopping mall at the base of Canary Wharf a few days ago (as one does). It seemed pretty full to me but everyone was moving about quite peaceably and I presume many of them volunteered to go there every day. I didn't stay long.

Time for a poetry performance from a mathematician:
http://www.upworthy.com/next-time-someo ... -them-this

Thanks Hollie
http://holliemcnish.com/

Your self-satisfied smugness knows no bound does it Biff. The majority of people who live crowded urban lives do not choose to live them. They live are forced to live them as a result of a combination of factors including location of jobs, size of wage and real estate prices. Having been economically forced to live those lives, they then inevitably adopt and acquire a culture that is a reflection of that economic reality. Those urban dwellers have nowhere else to go. You use words like "choice" because it's enables you to square the inequality of your life and the lives of poor urban dwellers and your limp wristed liberal sensibilities. I'm not decrying the life you live, just enough with the f***ing bullshit hypocrisy will you.

Hey, but in any event, it's okay if urban resources are stretched to breaking point by the influx of yet more cheap labour making it even harder for existing urban dwellers to make ends meet because all we need are a few more "techie fixes." eh? The main thing is, it won't be affecting you will it Biff? Or, at least, you don't think so.

[AndySir]

They live are forced to live them as a result of a combination of factors including location of jobs, size of wage and real estate prices.

Found a map of wealth distribution in Europe, which tallies well with the population distribution map posted earlier.

Moving water from other parts of the country is not an option as it will damage local ecosystems. If you think it is ok, then you do not understand that even humans have to live in an environment that considers other species. Therefore the south east at least, is full.

Perhaps we could encourage people to move out of the South East by investing in, say Grampian and the Scottish Highlands. Plenty of water there, but not much in the way of work. London and the South East have always drained the best talent from the rest of the country and now the rest of the continent as well - seems a bit churlish to complain you have been too successful.

[Little John]

Complete bullshit as you full well know due to massive and growing inequity of distribution of wealth within those areas of "wealth concentration"

[biffvernon]

Your self-satisfied smugness knows no bound does it Biff.

I've really no idea what you mean by that.

The majority of people who live crowded urban lives do not choose to live there.

What evidence is there of that? I was born and brought up and spent a few year of working life in London. Then I chose to move to Lincolnshire. Any of my friends and work colleagues could have done the same but mostly they chose to stay, wishing me luck.

Unemployment varies a bit across the regions but is hardly enough to be a significant influence on choice of location to live, though of course people choose to move to specific jobs. With house prices in much of London four times what they are in Lincolnshire there has to be a pretty big incentive for people to live there. As far as I can make out, a lot of people actually like living in cities. There are certainly a lot of things you can do in London that you can't do in my village.

Please try to keep polite, Steve. Discussion is so much pleasanter without the personal abuse and do remember that what I write is as honest and truthful as I can make it - any perceptions of smugness and disingenuity are not intended and are more likely in the mind of the reader.

[biffvernon]

The majority of people who live crowded urban lives do not choose to live there.

Of course what I wrote above refers to England. In parts of the third world there may be a variety of push factors forcing quite unwilling people to move from rural to urban areas, but that's a different story.

[Little John]

The majority of people who live crowded urban lives do not choose to live there.

Of course what I wrote above refers to England. In parts of the third world there may be a variety of push factors forcing quite unwilling people to move from rural to urban areas, but that's a different story.

Are you really for real? What bloody planet do you live on? Do you really suppose that a young kid of limited ability and experientially driven horizons living in an urban UK ghetto has got more than a knat's fart of a chance of escaping the psychological and economic shackles of their birth, and that this situation is not increasing in severity?

As for civility, I've just about had enough of forums like this and f***ing smug, self-satisfied hypocrites like you on them Biff. I'm just about done here to be honest mister.

[biffvernon]

I'll take that as a 'No' then.

[biffvernon]

Perhaps we could encourage people to move out of the South East by investing in, say Grampian and the Scottish Highlands. Plenty of water there, but not much in the way of work.

Here's a map of unemployment:

I see that Grampian and Highland do not have especially high unemployment. Of course there's not much work, but that's because there are few people. There were, the previous time I visited the place in the 1970s, few people and not much work at Canary Wharfe. Now the workers are stacked up high to the sky following a great deal of investment. Things can change.

[AndySir]

Complete bullshit as you full well know due to massive and growing inequity of distribution of wealth within those areas of "wealth concentration"

No, although may I say I am glad you told me I wasn't any good at debating because I might otherwise have thought that 'complete bullshit' wasn't a particularly incisive argument.

But here's a table for median wages which should avoid the unbalancing effect of the super rich on the mean. I note median wages in my home (about £17k) are a little over half of the median wage in London (About 30-31k).

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... she-mapped