EU immigration row / time to get out

[biffvernon]

dressed up as Jesus.

I think quite a lot of people regard Jesus as a good role model, so I guess I'd better take that as a compliment.

[biffvernon]

I'm still confused by the assertion that most people living in cities want to be there. I work with about 50 engineers (so, at least moderately intelligent and with good salaries) and only one of them doesn't want a home in the country. If they can't afford it what hope for the vast number of low-income earners?

That's an interesting point. Why can't they afford it? I guess they say they can't afford to give up their jobs. But it must depend on what part of the country they have in mind and what jobs they don't want to give up. If, for example they think 'country' is Surrey then forget it. If it's Lincolnshire, where property prices are a quarter of Surrey and there are lots of engineering jobs on the Humber Bank then it might be a different story. It would be interesting to hear, even anecdotally, the reasons why individuals live in cities. I don't think it is simple but I do think, in Britain, that is choice not compulsion.

[AndySir]

These millions you’re going to help will need jobs which they will take off the current inhabitants ideally I feel they should take those jobs off you and biff, They will need to live somewhere again it would be nice if you and biff gave up your homes to them

They can compete with me for jobs and housing in a free market. For someone who so strongly advocates social Darwinism you seem to need an awful lot of protection from competition, J2M.

[odaeio]

Ahh Bif, they could perhaps afford it, but WHERE is that "little piece of Britain" that they could use?

Who Owns Britain 2010

The Forestry Commission – 2.6 million acres

The National Trust – 630,000 acres

Ministry of Defence – 590,000 acres

Pension funds – 550,000 acres

Utilities like water and power – 500,000 acres

The Crown Estate – 360,000 acres

The RSPB – 320,000 acres

The Duke of Buccleuch – 240,000 acres

The National Trust for Scotland – 190,000 acres

The Duke of Atholl’s trusts – 150,000 acres

The top ten aristocratic owners

Duke of Buccleuch - 240,000 acres

Duke of Atholl's trusts - 150,000 acres

Prince Charles as the Duke of Cornwall - 134,000 acres

Duke of Westminster - 133,000 acres

Duke of Northumberland - 130,000 acres

Capt Alwyne Farquharson - 128,000 acres

Earl of Seafield - 101,000 acres

Countess of Sutherland - 82,000 acres

Baroness Willoughby de'Eresby - 78,000 acres

The Pearson family - 69,000 acres

The other 59 point some change million of us live on the remaining 7.7% of the land mass called Britain.................

Even if one got hold of one of these..............

http://www.woodlands.co.uk/buying-a-woo ... nway-wood/

See how long one would last erecting a small log cabin and planting out a row or two of cabbage.......

Gestapo and bulldozers within 28 days according to the "laws" made by the above list of controlling elites who decided to commandeer the land by force.............

Agenda 21's blue eyed boy's 'n girls, they are O.K. Jack - f**k the rest of the idiot sub-life forms ambulating around, cram them into extreme density pockets, they'll soon go insane and exterminate themselves, we can help that along as well with draconian persecution...........yep, good plan guy's, good plan.

Do you really believe the sheeple slaves have a CHOICE????????

I don't think "immigration" makes any difference either way........and "getting out" doesn't help much, wherever one goes in the world, if it's not the elites, then one is subject to the Mafioso type crowds who will "allow" one to exist or not. Might as well stay here and go hide in a disused reservoir1

[UndercoverElephant]

dressed up as Jesus.

I think quite a lot of people regard Jesus as a good role model, so I guess I'd better take that as a compliment.

The problem is that you're only dressed up as Jesus, Biff. Underneath, you are no better than any of the rest of us.

[clv101]

Re the numbers, there are approximately the same number of UK born folk living elsewhere in the EU as there are EU born living here (2 and a bit million of each). Lets just get this into perceptive.

Before the world was divided into nation states competing in this way it was divided into city states who competed and fought wars. Before that it was divided into tribes who had tribal boundaries and fought tribal warfare. And before that...well, you know how evolution works? It was warfare and competition all the way back to the first living cell, and probably before. Yes, there was some co-operation along the way, but mainly because co-operation leads to more efficient warfare.

The trend from the first living cell, to tribes, to city states to nation states etc. is clear. The fighting 'unit' is getting larger. The EU is the latest example. Is it possible, that one day, the whole world will basically fight as one? If York and Lancaster, France and England, can settle their differences, why not everyone?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's most likely that this century will be marked by all kinds of horrors, wars, etc. But, critically, I don't believe is has to be so. The more people believe it has to be so, the more likely it will be so in my opinion.

[Little John]

Re the numbers, there are approximately the same number of UK born folk living elsewhere in the EU as there are EU born living here (2 and a bit million of each). Lets just get this into perceptive.

Before the world was divided into nation states competing in this way it was divided into city states who competed and fought wars. Before that it was divided into tribes who had tribal boundaries and fought tribal warfare. And before that...well, you know how evolution works? It was warfare and competition all the way back to the first living cell, and probably before. Yes, there was some co-operation along the way, but mainly because co-operation leads to more efficient warfare.

The trend from the first living cell, to tribes, to city states to nation states etc. is clear. The fighting 'unit' is getting larger. The EU is the latest example. Is it possible, that one day, the whole world will basically fight as one? If York and Lancaster, France and England, can settle their differences, why not everyone?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's most likely that this century will be marked by all kinds of horrors, wars, etc. But, critically, I don't believe is has to be so. The more people believe it has to be so, the more likely it will be so in my opinion.

Greater and more diverse access to energy and other resources are what has led to that greater complexity of organisational structures in human affairs. A reduction of diversity and degree of access to those resources are why that level of complexity of organisational structures is no longer sustainable.

Peak resources also means peak human civilisation. In the absence of a continuing increase in access to those resources, the level of organisation of human affairs that occurred during the last century is as good as it gets or will ever get. If you want to know what human affairs will look like a couple of centuries hence, take a long, hard look at the past. The only way we get to avoid a re-run of the past, is if we continue to consume resources at the same rate, or greater, than we are currently doing. But, if we do that, we burn.

Crash or burn; those are the only choices that face us.

[biffvernon]

Ahh Biff, they could perhaps afford it, but WHERE is that "little piece of Britain" that they could use?

It's a nice list and you won't find me defending the distribution of land and wealth!

But I don't see what it's got to do with the price of housing, which is highest in London and much lower many rural areas such as Lincolnshire. One could buy several acres for the price of a garage in parts of London.

[odaeio]

I think it's to do with "value" - the "value" of anything is what someone else will pay for it". Is an apple worth 20 chairs? No, not if one has a choice - yes, if all the carpenter has is a load of chairs, but no food and the situation for him is critical........... The trick is to "legislate" - then violently enforce that legislation, to create artificial scarcity of vitally essential commodities, then sure the "starving" will exchange anything, sometimes even their children, in a desperate attempt to survive................

If one "has" to work in the city in order to feed oneself, (because it illegal to feed oneself off the land, or even physically stay on it), then one has the option to pay whatever is demanded for the accommodation within reach of "the job", or be "unemployed", cold and hungry - not much of a "choice" really......

Hence the discrepancy in "house prices" in different area's. Also, seems to me, that the vast majority of the brainwashed/indoctrinated/psychologically programmed, cannot even conceive of the notion that planting one's own carrots or sewing a shirt could be considered any form of work - the only possible way to stay alive is to "have a job", nothing else is possible....and the above list of "land owners" has a fully vested interest in promoting, legislating and enforcing that belief.

[UndercoverElephant]

The trend from the first living cell, to tribes, to city states to nation states etc. is clear. The fighting 'unit' is getting larger. The EU is the latest example. Is it possible, that one day, the whole world will basically fight as one?

Only if hostile aliens turn up.

If York and Lancaster, France and England, can settle their differences, why not everyone?

Because the settling of differences only ever took place in the face of greater threats from outside. The Highland clans only stopped fighting with each other when faced with the threat of the English and the lowland Scots bent on dominating all of them.

[RenewableCandy]

I do sometimes wonder about independence for Scotland...

On the +ve side, Land Ownership there is really An Issue, i.e. people will talk about it and even, on occasions, be seen voting for those who would address it. You get islands being bought-out by their tenants and that kind of thing.

[biffvernon]

I think it's to do with "value" - the "value" of anything is what someone else will pay for it". Is an apple worth 20 chairs? No, not if one has a choice - yes, if all the carpenter has is a load of chairs, but no food and the situation for him is critical........... The trick is to "legislate" - then violently enforce that legislation, to create artificial scarcity of vitally essential commodities, then sure the "starving" will exchange anything, sometimes even their children, in a desperate attempt to survive................

If one "has" to work in the city in order to feed oneself, (because it illegal to feed oneself off the land, or even physically stay on it), then one has the option to pay whatever is demanded for the accommodation within reach of "the job", or be "unemployed", cold and hungry - not much of a "choice" really......

Hence the discrepancy in "house prices" in different area's. Also, seems to me, that the vast majority of the brainwashed/indoctrinated/psychologically programmed, cannot even conceive of the notion that planting one's own carrots or sewing a shirt could be considered any form of work - the only possible way to stay alive is to "have a job", nothing else is possible....and the above list of "land owners" has a fully vested interest in promoting, legislating and enforcing that belief.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I think you are taking living in the rural areas as meaning living off the land. Most folk in, say, Lincolnshire, where house prices are a quarter or less than in central London, do the same sort of jobs as people in cities. They are insurance workers, hair-dressers, doctors, cleaners, teachers, mechanics, priests, shop-keepers and the rest. Very few grow carrots, despite houses with gardens being cheaper, as it's much easier to get them from Tescopoly. There are jobs for those who choose to live in rural areas. The point of my posting the unemployment map was to suggest that unemployment doesn't vary very much, just a few percent, and doesn't correlate very strongly with house prices. I don't see any coercion to live in cities so think that many people choose to live in them despite, particularly in London's case, high housing costs.

[extractorfan]

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I think you are taking living in the rural areas as meaning living off the land. Most folk in, say, Lincolnshire, where house prices are a quarter or less than in central London, do the same sort of jobs as people in cities. They are insurance workers, hair-dressers, doctors, cleaners, teachers, mechanics, priests, shop-keepers and the rest. Very few grow carrots, despite houses with gardens being cheaper, as it's much easier to get them from Tescopoly. There are jobs for those who choose to live in rural areas. The point of my posting the unemployment map was to suggest that unemployment doesn't vary very much, just a few percent, and doesn't correlate very strongly with house prices. I don't see any coercion to live in cities so think that many people choose to live in them despite, particularly in London's case, high housing costs.

Quite.

I choose to live within the M25 although I'd prefer a rural environment. I do it in the hope I'll pay off a mortgage and "retire" to a cheaper place in a lower population place. I see rural as nicer but urban as necessary for my plan. I could though move to rural and get a lower paid job and do it that way, I guess.

Steve's right about people born into Urban ghetto's though in as they may not even contemplate there is a choice, it is just how it is so to speak.

[RenewableCandy]

There is precious little choice if, like me, you can't drive. Luckily, I quite like living where there are reasonable numbers of other people.

As for tonnes and tonnes of immigrants coming over: not going to happen. Where are they all going to live, given the UK's high land and property prices? And, if they find there aren't enough jobs going (but don't forget that people generate jobs as well as taking them up), they're just going to move on, or return.

[clv101]

The trend from the first living cell, to tribes, to city states to nation states etc. is clear. The fighting 'unit' is getting larger. The EU is the latest example. Is it possible, that one day, the whole world will basically fight as one?

Only if hostile aliens turn up.

If York and Lancaster, France and England, can settle their differences, why not everyone?

Because the settling of differences only ever took place in the face of greater threats from outside. The Highland clans only stopped fighting with each other when faced with the threat of the English and the lowland Scots bent on dominating all of them.

Yes, aliens or greater threat from outside might do it... maybe climate change, resource depletion etc. might be that external threat?