EU immigration row / time to get out

[biffvernon]

So RC's 80M could be accommodated but likely with a reduced life expectancy brought about by crowding, disease, restricted diet, stress and violence. If you aim for a standard similar to now then I think 45M would be more realistic assuming cities could be supplied from their hinterland. If the aim was quality of life and a high degree of national independence then 25M ...

I'm not sure how easy it is to make good estimates like this, there are so many variables. (Reminder to UE: I would like to see the UK with a stable or gently reducing population but the rest of this post is not about what I want, or even about what is practical, let alone likely, but about what is theoretically possible.)

Much depends on where one draws system boundaries. Let's first say that no population is sustainable if it continues to be reliant on a finite resource such as fossil fuel or if it requires the emission of greenhouse gasses such as those produced by burning fossil fuel. So let's, for the sake of discussion, imagine we've somehow transitioned to a zero-carbon Britain.

Back to system boundaries. Do we draw a line along, say, the M25 and ask whether the system therein contained with it's current population can be sustainable in terms of food and other resources in isolation? Hard to imagine! But what if it were allowed to trade, say with the rest of the British Isles, or with the rest of the World? Then, clearly, yes, it would be sustainable. So a region's sustainable population must be, at least in part, a function of it ability to trade with other regions.

To take an absurd (and horrid) case, could we describe the UK as 'sustainable' if all the world's urban populations were to move to Britain, concreting over our green and pleasant land so it all looked like London, but trading with the rest of the planet's remaining rural population. I think the answer could be 'yes' (though I would have emigrated long before).

The point is, we can't put numbers onto things like regional sustainability without first defining system boundaries.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think I'd start getting worried if it went up by more than about 25% (so, say, to 80M people). We're beginning to lose self-sufficiency in food and energy: we could get those back, with effort, with under 80M people but more than that and it'd probably be impossible.

But a far greater problem, imho, is the skewed wealth distribution here, particularly when it comes to ownership of land.

Oh we have plenty of other problems, including some very serious ones, such as the one you've highlighted. I would, in fact, have accepted any population density as a reasonable answer from Mr Vernon. At least that would have given us something to debate. Instead, he slithered and slimed and proudly dodged the question again.

Personally I'd say we're already in trouble, but I can accept a difference of opinion on matters like these. What I refuse to accept are people who claim that there is something wrong with the question.

It is a valid question in my opinion at least, it is also very subjective. The big variable is 'What standard of living would be accepted?' The higher that level the lower the population that could be supported.

So RC's 80M could be accommodated but likely with a reduced life expectancy brought about by crowding, disease, restricted diet, stress and violence. If you aim for a standard similar to now then I think 45M would be more realistic assuming cities could be supplied from their hinterland. If the aim was quality of life and a high degree of national independence then 25M would be about right. That level could be supported without too much infrastructure (ie. non-productive costs) but still have a viable future. At that level the current rail system would be adequate and the cost of impulse items would be higher making them a considered purchase. There would be enough demand for fundamental items to make production viable locally as transport would be that much more expensive due to reduced volumes.

As you agree though the big problem is the skewed distribution wealth and, unless that is addressed, there is no answer to your question. Migrant workers are being exploited and everybody except those who are responsible for the means of production suffer.

Until wages, conditions of employment, safety and welfare are harmonised across the EU this problem will remain. In the end either the EU will fail because of the disparate economies within it or we will all suffer under it. The only alternative is complete harmonisation.

I agree with all of this, including the numbers, approximately.

[UndercoverElephant]

Much depends on where one draws system boundaries.

The point is, we can't put numbers onto things like regional sustainability without first defining system boundaries.

BOUNDARIES????

I thought you didn't believe in those.

Yes, Mr Vernon, first you have to define the system boundaries. And guess what? We already have some of those defined, and, erm, they are the boundaries of our political jurisdictions. You know...the UK, the EU...

You keep claiming you want to allow anybody to come to the UK, and in fact to the EU in general. This ignores the existing political "system boundaries" (i.e. the ones where laws can be implemented and enforced) and makes a mockery of everything else one might attempt in terms of sustainability. When asked a perfectly valid question about population density within those system boundaries, you dodge the question and claim that the UK is unlikely to be a desirable destination so it probably won't be a problem. This is bullshit, BiffVernon. You yourself acknowledge that the most likely future scenario is a serious downward trajectory for living standards all over the world, and there is no reason to believe that life in the UK is going to get harder at such a rapid rate that we overtake the myriad places in the world that are already hell-holes people are desperate to get out of. This is disingenuous, Mr Vernon. You are pretending you understand less about this than you actually do. The truth, and you know it to be the truth, is that the even with living standards in the UK falling fast, this country is likely to remain a desirable location for a large number of people who live in places where living standards are even lower, and it follows that we need to control the number of people crossing our SYSTEM BOUNDARIES, unless we are going to descend into hell as fast as is physically possible.

What makes me really angry is that you are forcing me to explain this to you, when there is no excuse for you to not know it already. I thought you were a geography teacher. If so, and you do not understand this, I feel very sorry for your students.

[Catweazle]

Not good enough. That answer is pathetic, and shows you to be a pathetic, dishonest individual. **** off.

Well, I've tried. You accused me of lying but have not produced a single example of a lie that I have written. I've tried to answer your questions as honestly, as straightforwardly and clearly as I can and still get this a response of ****off.

What to do?

**** off ?

I'm joking of course, but you do come across as a dreamer. UE isn't a racist, he is concerned about his future in the real world, not some imaginary utopia.

[woodburner]

UE doesn't have to be so personally offensive though. His vitriol doesn't indicate a faith in his own position, but rather a shaky belief and that his argument will crumble unless everybody else agrees with him. If they don't agree, it's toys out of the pram again, and again and again and again.

[AndySir]

Much depends on where one draws system boundaries.

The point is, we can't put numbers onto things like regional sustainability without first defining system boundaries.

BOUNDARIES????

I thought you didn't believe in those.

Yes, Mr Vernon, first you have to define the system boundaries. And guess what? We already have some of those defined, and, erm, they are the boundaries of our political jurisdictions. You know...the UK, the EU...

You keep claiming you want to allow anybody to come to the UK, and in fact to the EU in general. This ignores the existing political "system boundaries" (i.e. the ones where laws can be implemented and enforced) and makes a mockery of everything else one might attempt in terms of sustainability. When asked a perfectly valid question about population density within those system boundaries, you dodge the question and claim that the UK is unlikely to be a desirable destination so it probably won't be a problem. This is bullshit, BiffVernon. You yourself acknowledge that the most likely future scenario is a serious downward trajectory for living standards all over the world, and there is no reason to believe that life in the UK is going to get harder at such a rapid rate that we overtake the myriad places in the world that are already hell-holes people are desperate to get out of. This is disingenuous, Mr Vernon. You are pretending you understand less about this than you actually do. The truth, and you know it to be the truth, is that the even with living standards in the UK falling fast, this country is likely to remain a desirable location for a large number of people who live in places where living standards are even lower, and it follows that we need to control the number of people crossing our SYSTEM BOUNDARIES, unless we are going to descend into hell as fast as is physically possible.

What makes me really angry is that you are forcing me to explain this to you, when there is no excuse for you to not know it already. I thought you were a geography teacher. If so, and you do not understand this, I feel very sorry for your students.

It seemed quite clear that he was talking about trade.

[Little John]

UE doesn't have to be so personally offensive though. His vitriol doesn't indicate a faith in his own position, but rather a shaky belief and that his argument will crumble unless everybody else agrees with him. If they don't agree, it's toys out of the pram again, and again and again and again.

His vitriol, whilst unfortunate, is entirely understandable.

[peaceful_life]

UE doesn't have to be so personally offensive though. His vitriol doesn't indicate a faith in his own position, but rather a shaky belief and that his argument will crumble unless everybody else agrees with him. If they don't agree, it's toys out of the pram again, and again and again and again.

His vitriol, whilst unfortunate, is entirely understandable.

Maybe, but how many dynamics do you pull in or omit, are we including land reform, an economy of ecology and a wee bit of equity perhaps?

As is, there aint enough room for more than half, but again, that's under a system of greedy self interest and complete indifference, at least as far as we're led to believe and I haven't done a vox pop lately, we don't even know what the true numbers are.

But at the very least people need to cool their jets just a wee bit.

[Little John]

UE doesn't have to be so personally offensive though. His vitriol doesn't indicate a faith in his own position, but rather a shaky belief and that his argument will crumble unless everybody else agrees with him. If they don't agree, it's toys out of the pram again, and again and again and again.

His vitriol, whilst unfortunate, is entirely understandable.

Maybe, but how many dynamics do you pull in or omit, are we including land reform, an economy of ecology and a wee bit of equity perhaps?

As is, there aint enough room for more than half, but again, that's under a system of greedy self interest and complete indifference, at least as far as we're led to believe and I haven't done a vox pop lately, we don't even know what the true numbers are.

But at the very least people need to cool their jets just a wee bit.

As UE has already pointed out, the main reason for his vitriol, and the main reason for my own, is not any specific disagreement on the actual numbers involved, but rather the entirely disingenuous avoidance of even addressing the question and of the attempt, either direct or by implication, of casting those who do pose and attempt to address that question as being implicit or explicit racists.

I, for one, am sick of it both here and elsewhere.

[woodburner]

Off down the angry slope again?

[Little John]

Off down the angry slope again?

Nope

Still making pathetic, pointless non-points about process instead of actual points of substance for which you would then need to account? You do that rather a lot don't you WB.

[woodburner]

There you go again, everybody marching across the parade ground and you are the only one in step. For goodness sake (or anything else you hold dear), give it a rest.

You have little idea what Biff thinks, you can read only the words written here. Then you have to interpret them. You might get it right, you might get it wrong. None of us has the absolute knowledge of what is true, and unless someone is being abusive, they are allowed to have an opinion in this attempt at democracy. (They are even allowed to be abusive on PS, but to what benefit?).

Everything is pathetic, pointless, unrealistic, or any other degrading adjective according to you.

I disagree with quite a bit of what Biff says, and I agree with quite a bit you say. What I don't agree with is your lambasting response to someone's view when you don't agree with it.

I doubt you will change Biff, so learn to live with it. You say you are not angry, but I doubt I am the only one that detects this trait in your posts.

ATEOTWAWKI we are all going to need the support of everybody we can get, the alternative is we will be fighting everybody. With enough friends that will mean fewer people to fight. If you don't deal with the anger, people will detect it and I suspect, shun you. You could then be fighting everybody.

[AndySir]

As UE has already pointed out, the main reason for his vitriol, and the main reason for my own, is not any specific disagreement on the actual numbers involved, but rather the entirely disingenuous avoidance of even addressing the question and of the attempt, either direct or by implication, of casting those who do pose and attempt to address that question as being implicit or explicit racists.

I, for one, am sick of it both here and elsewhere.

Yes, as several people have patiently tried to explain the question is unanswerable. Anyone attempting to provide numbers for the carrying capacity of Britain has already been guilty of grossly oversimplifying the question. It has been made clear (especially by UE's last mocking SYSTEM BOUNDARIES) that you and he would rather resort to vitriol and mockery than acknowledge any flaws in your simplistic world view.

Put it this way, imagine you wildest dreams come true and we do get bombed back to the stone age. What's the most natural system boundary to take? For the South East of England it almost certainly includes France and Holland before the North of England - sea routes have always been the primary trade routes. Similarly for Scotland it has always been Ireland & the Isle of Man. So what is sustainable? Depends on the scenario.

In the event of BAU we could build up Airstrip One like Hong Kong and still be sustainable.

So the correct answer to your question is - it depends. Probably you should be asking another question. Anything else is just pulling numbers out of a hat and arguing about which one is best. This is apparently something you want - a meaningless, content free debate.

[biffvernon]

you do come across as a dreamer. UE isn't a racist, he is concerned about his future in the real world, not some imaginary utopia.

Martin Luther King was a great dreamer. Dreaming allows one to explore unrealistic possibilities, which can, however unrealistic, suggest worthwhile directions of travel. The late David Fleming was particularly fond of the phrase 'Tactical Exercises Without Troops' (TEWT) being applied to political studies.

I've never called UE a racist.

[biffvernon]

you dodge the question and claim that the UK is unlikely to be a desirable destination so it probably won't be a problem.

Where did I claim that? On the contrary, I highlighted the importance of addressing the push and pull factors that make the UK desirable. I do not want the UK's population to grow, as I have said many times before.

Why do you misrepresent what I say and then criticize me for holding a position which is far from the position that I actually hold?