Brexit process

[Little John]

No modern nation can be entirely self sufficient, but I feel that the UK should work towards reducing population, and reducing reliance on imports.

No matter how the Brexit shambles ends, the availability of cheap imports of food and fuel seems unlikely to continue and it would be prudent to prepare for this on both a personal and on a national level.

Returning more specifically to Brexit, leaving the EU wont in itself prohibit trade and imports.

exactly

[vtsnowedin]

There is no way that we can go back to living on our little island in splendid isolation, protected from all those nasty foreigners....

..

The UK has not lived in isolation sense the year 1620. Consider the days when "The sun never sets on the British empire".
But not to worry the cubs will still trade with the old lion no matter what Europe does.

[Mark]

No modern nation can be entirely self sufficient, but I feel that the UK should work towards reducing population, and reducing reliance on imports.

No matter how the Brexit shambles ends, the availability of cheap imports of food and fuel seems unlikely to continue and it would be prudent to prepare for this on both a personal and on a national level.

Returning more specifically to Brexit, leaving the EU wont in itself prohibit trade and imports.

exactly

I agree with that too.
My only concern would be the methods employed to reduce population....
Suspect that LJ's thoughts on that matter would be too radical for most.

[Mark]

The UK has not lived in isolation sense the year 1620. Consider the days when "The sun never sets on the British empire".
But not to worry the cubs will still trade with the old lion no matter what Europe does.

1620 is a bit too recent for some on here......
Remember, those awful Spaniards and their Armada had only just been whupped....

[Potemkin Villager]

....whatever happens a large number of people are going to be pissed off on either one side or the other. Life is unlikely to improve for those who are currently suffering the most under this government regardless of the outcome in March.

Brexit is the gift that just keeps giving and giving!

Whatever the eventual outcome everybody is going to be worse off as well as pissed off especially as politicians of all stripes wriggle to try and deny the consequences of their actions and inactions.

I was very struck by the miserable faces on the Labour front bench yesterday when the result of the second vote for parliament to "take back power" was announced. Comrade Corbyn and Co really have no more of a clue how to proceed, and not end up in exactly the same situation, than anybody else.

[vtsnowedin]

The UK has not lived in isolation sense the year 1620. Consider the days when "The sun never sets on the British empire".
But not to worry the cubs will still trade with the old lion no matter what Europe does.

1620 is a bit too recent for some on here......
Remember, those awful Spaniards and their Armada had only just been whupped....

Yes yes, quite right. How silly of me to forget that.
In my defense my last history class was in 1972 when as my children have told me there was so much less of it to study.

[Little John]

No modern nation can be entirely self sufficient, but I feel that the UK should work towards reducing population, and reducing reliance on imports.

No matter how the Brexit shambles ends, the availability of cheap imports of food and fuel seems unlikely to continue and it would be prudent to prepare for this on both a personal and on a national level.

Returning more specifically to Brexit, leaving the EU wont in itself prohibit trade and imports.

exactly

I agree with that too.
My only concern would be the methods employed to reduce population....
Suspect that LJ's thoughts on that matter would be too radical for most.

For the avoidance of misrepresentation:

My aims are:

1) Regain full sovereign control of our own internal political affairs

2) Establish a democratic socialist administration in order to more equitably allocate jobs and wealth in this country

3) Over the medium term, step up all measure possible to make this country as self reliant and self sufficient as possible whilst simultaneously, maintain and strengthen international trade in those goods and services that cannot be produced nationally.

4) Over the longer term, implement a one child family planning policy to bring this country's population size back down to something approaching it's true ecological carrying capacity

[kenneal - lagger]

We wouldn't need a one child policy, Steve. The indigenous population is procreating at below the replacement rate already so the population will reduce a quite a pace naturally. It would be a political bomb just saying that policy was to allow the population to reduce without the unpopularity of a one child policy with all the clamour about human rights. There would b e a lot of Brits who would say "b******s to that and have five kids just to spite the government!

By all means discourage families larger than two children and stop immigration but you will have to change the banking system to stop it imploding, address lower house prices and the effect that has on individuals and mortgage lenders and address the effect of an ageing population on elderly care and financing.

I agree with you on this and it will be forced on us by about 2050 anyway as, according to UN figures, the world population will start to drop then. When that happens there could be a lot of unprepared countries trying to poach "economic growth" from others by enticing their population away.

[kenneal - lagger]

4) As the world turns to shit on the back of that Long Emergency I mentioned, each nation state must look to it's own self-sufficient integrity and stability first and seek to "save the world" a distant second.

We all know that the UK can't be self sufficient with our current level of population and the resources available....
To get there, would need a substantial reduction in population (Brexit, or worse ?) or a substantial reduction in living standards or both....

The reality is that the world is totally interconnected and getting more so all the time..., even N. Korea relies on China and will open up eventually....
There is no way that we can go back to living on our little island in splendid isolation, protected from all those nasty foreigners....

It's not about 'saving' the world, it's about being part of the world....

According to CAT's latest Zero Carbon Britain Report, available to download here free, Britain can be 85% self sufficient at, I presume, its current population although it doesn't say that. With a bit of fiddling I would think that we could be 100% self sufficient but it would probably involve us doing without "staples" such as tea, coffee, bananas, citrus fruit and a few other things, at least until the climate warms enough for us to grow them here!

As I said above it would be quite easy to reduce the population but the effects of that reduction would be catastrophic under our current financial system.

Brexit is about being part of the world not being just "a little European"! It is about trading with the rest of the world as well as Europe and not hiding away from the big nasties of the wider world behind our European barricade as Remainers seem to crave.

[Little John]

We wouldn't need a one child policy, Steve. The indigenous population is procreating at below the replacement rate already so the population will reduce a quite a pace naturally. It would be a political bomb just saying that policy was to allow the population to reduce without the unpopularity of a one child policy with all the clamour about human rights. There would b e a lot of Brits who would say "b******s to that and have five kids just to spite the government!

By all means discourage families larger than two children and stop immigration but you will have to change the banking system to stop it imploding, address lower house prices and the effect that has on individuals and mortgage lenders and address the effect of an ageing population on elderly care and financing.

I agree with you on this and it will be forced on us by about 2050 anyway as, according to UN figures, the world population will start to drop then. When that happens there could be a lot of unprepared countries trying to poach "economic growth" from others by enticing their population away.

The problem with allowing natural decline, Ken, is that it is uneven. That is to say, there are some uncomfortable truths about radically different fertility rates across different ethnic groups in this country that need taking into account. So, for example, the white, middle and upper middle class have a fertility rate below replacement. The white working class are on or just below replacement. But, other ethic groups are typically above replacement level and, in the case of specific ones, such as the Middle Eastern and northern African Muslim ethic group, well above replacement. Therefore, in order to avoid racial and ethnic tensions becoming inflamed, a family planning policy, irrespective of race or culture, would need to be applied.

[kenneal - lagger]

I'm not confused Ken.

......

I know you're not confused in your aims, Steve. The confusion lies in who in the Kleptocracy wants us in or out.

We often hear Remainers saying that it is the industrial barons who want us out so that they can make money through the destruction of regulations but that ignores the fact that much of industry wants us to stay in the EU so that they can continue to trade with Europe without any barriers.

Many Remainers say that the City wants us to leave to avoid a Transaction Tax while many banks have been saying that they will up sticks and find a new home in Europe.

I am certainly confused and I know that many others are although they have not realised it yet!!

[kenneal - lagger]

The problem with allowing natural decline, Ken, is that it is uneven. That is to say, there are some uncomfortable truths about radically different fertility rates across different ethnic groups in this country that need taking into account. So, for example, the white, middle and upper middle class have a fertility rate below replacement. The white working class are on or just below replacement. But, other ethic groups are typically above replacement level and, in the case of specific ones, such as the Middle Eastern and northern African Muslim ethic group, well above replacement. Therefore, in order to avoid racial and ethnic tensions becoming inflamed, a family planning policy, irrespective of race or culture, would need to be applied.

The thinking on this that I have seen is that after the first generation all racial and religious groups tend towards the norm of the indigenous population. Yes, there might be outliers but the average tend towards the norm. It is something that could be watched and policy adjusted accordingly. Even Irish Catholic families, which were notorious in my youth, and backed by the Pope, for having large families, now usually (on average) conform to this.

Do you count orthodox Jews in you Middle Eastern category as their interpretation of their religion requires(?)/encourages large families.

[Little John]

The problem with allowing natural decline, Ken, is that it is uneven. That is to say, there are some uncomfortable truths about radically different fertility rates across different ethnic groups in this country that need taking into account. So, for example, the white, middle and upper middle class have a fertility rate below replacement. The white working class are on or just below replacement. But, other ethic groups are typically above replacement level and, in the case of specific ones, such as the Middle Eastern and northern African Muslim ethic group, well above replacement. Therefore, in order to avoid racial and ethnic tensions becoming inflamed, a family planning policy, irrespective of race or culture, would need to be applied.

The thinking on this that I have seen is that after the first generation all racial and religious groups tend towards the norm of the indigenous population. Yes, there might be outliers but the average tend towards the norm. It is something that could be watched and policy adjusted accordingly. Even Irish Catholic families, which were notorious in my youth, and backed by the Pope, for having large families, now usually (on average) conform to this.

Do you count orthodox Jews in you Middle Eastern category as their interpretation of their religion requires(?)/encourages large families.

I do yes. Both orthodox Judaism and Islam actively exhort high fertility rates in their followers. I am less acquainted with the number on orthodox Judaism. Bit, on Islam I am do have some knowledge. It is relatively distinct in that it's followers do not reduce in fertility, to any significant extent, even after existing in a given country for several generations. And that is definitely going to be a problem in terms of racial/ethnic/cultural tensions as both resources get tighter and reductions in populations, overall, become necessary or, even, inevitable.

[RevdTess]

It's pretty unnerving the way you guys are casually discussing population control with reference to particular religions and ethnicities. I mean, what next, selective euthanasia of undesirable minorities? I agree that populations are too high and we need to be much more self-sufficient, but taking away fundamental human rights to have children is certainly far more than I could stomach. Far too authoritarian. And I speak as someone who has no children.

By the way, many evangelical Christian groups also encourage large families. It comes from God's apparent commandment to be fruitful and fill the earth, which probably made sense 4000 years ago, but he never said what 'fill' actually meant.

[Little John]

It's pretty unnerving the way you guys are casually discussing population control with reference to particular religions and ethnicities. I mean, what next, selective euthanasia of undesirable minorities? I agree that populations are too high and we need to be much more self-sufficient, but taking away fundamental human rights to have children is certainly far more than I could stomach. Far too authoritarian. And I speak as someone who has no children.

By the way, many evangelical Christian groups also encourage large families. It comes from God's apparent commandment to be fruitful and fill the earth, which probably made sense 4000 years ago, but he never said what 'fill' actually meant.

No it is not unnerving if you actually read what was written instead of superimposing your own ideological prejudices on what you assume was written. Especially given that the one child family planning policy I proposed expressly does not account for differences of ethnicity or religious/cultural affiliation. That's the point of it. It would be applied irrespective of race, colour or creed.

And, of course it is more than you can stomach since your "morality" only extends so far as you not actually having to face any real moral dilemmas. You have already demonstrated that recently. So, it is little surprise here that, despite your own acknowledgement that population size on a finite planet is unsustainable, you do not wish to actually engage in the morally messy business of doing something about it or, even, of discussing it.