Brexit and the Consequences

seekingTruth16 said:
Causing no issues is not the same as successfully integrating. As for there being plenty of communities who cause no issues, equally there are plenty who do cause issues. There are plenty of people who never commit a crime, then there are some who do. Should we also say crime is a smokescreen, not a problem and move on? Calling it a smoke-screen ignores the problem. Besides you only get to see the real underlying problem when things get a bit uncomfortable for the 'indigenous'.

Not your point tomorton, but I also don't agree the country is full. When I look at London and it's 9 million or so people and I know that there are cities coping with decent transport etc with 20-30 million people, it's hard to say even our biggest city is 'full'. It does 'feel' like there are too many people when you're stuck on the tube, or the house prices are crazy, but that's just bad transport planning and bad house building policy.
Click to expand...


But what do you mean by integration? Bearing in mind any valid definition must be one that does not impede anyone's liberty to live as they choose as long as this is without harm to their neighbours.
 
timsk said:
😆
Yes Tom, the former - not the latter - I wasn't being literal! Public services can't cope with the pressures placed on them now, which means that it's only a question of time before one - or some - of them collapse with potentially disastrous consequences. Investment in them needs to be stepped up while, simultaneously, arresting population growth. And the most obvious way to do that is to look at the key driver behind it - i.e. immigration. Controlling immigration might be a political hot potato, but the alternatives to it are worse. For example, we could adopt Herod the Great's policy of infanticide. This might achieve the same result, but I suspect it might not be a vote winner with the electorate.
Tim.
Click to expand...


I replied to yourself and barjon above on thee points. Well, it is my opinion that I did.
;-)
 
tomorton said:
You've got a car jon? Capitalist swine!
Click to expand...

😆 yeah and I had one in 1959 when the M1 was opened and there were 6 million cars registered. When the M1 was 50 years old in 2009 there were 24 million registered, there were 29 million in 2013 and I'd guess a few million more added since then. Add all the vans, lorries and trucks to that lot and it's no surprise that the roads are inadequate and taking a beating.

You'd need a pretty hefty tax increase just to put that right let alone anything else. As a capitalist swine, of course, I don't want to pay any more 🙂

I don't think you can just keep on adding half a million people a year and keep up with the infrastructure/services pressure that brings.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
I don't think you can just keep on adding half a million people a year and keep up with the infrastructure/services pressure that brings.
Click to expand...

Even if you didn't add anyone at all, you'd still have infrastructure and services costs. Unless you just shut everything down. And if the wealthy aren't going to pay their fair share, you need the immigrants for the revenue.

It's not immigration. It's revenue.
 
dbphoenix said:
Even if you didn't add anyone at all, you'd still have infrastructure and services costs. Unless you just shut everything down. And if the wealthy aren't going to pay their fair share, you need the immigrants for the revenue.

It's not immigration. It's revenue.
Click to expand...

It's not only £ cost, db. There's the social costs of overcrowding, driving new roads through existing communities etc etc. And we'd likely never get it done - the furore over Heathrow and an extra runway has been going on for years, for example.,
 
barjon said:
It's not only £ cost, db. There's the social costs of overcrowding, driving new roads through existing communities etc etc. And we'd likely never get it done - the furore over Heathrow and an extra runway has been going on for years, for example.,
Click to expand...

You're going to have overcrowding anyway unless the death rate exceeds the birth rate. But that's the case with every country in the world.
 
Reducing immigration or birth rate or both isn't going to improve public service provision. Its resources and quality will always lag the need, and this will be true even with a stable population total.
 
Britain’s Financial Power Is Already Seeping Away

Leadsom on BBC asking media and newspapers to be patriotic...

How is that going to help events and brexit negotiations progress in our favour?

Once again whilst the UK offers City supremacy to EU on a silver plate, Leadsom comes out with emotional tripe and no substance on how to counteract a grave and strategic national error.

These political leaders with personal ambitions are dangerous to the UK national interest imo.
 
tomorton said:
Reducing immigration or birth rate or both isn't going to improve public service provision. Its resources and quality will always lag the need, and this will be true even with a stable population total.
Click to expand...

Yes....but the qualification is that with a stable population the lag will reduce to a less catastrophic level and then itself stabilise.
 
tomorton said:
Reducing immigration or birth rate or both isn't going to improve public service provision. Its resources and quality will always lag the need, and this will be true even with a stable population total.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,
I'm going to follow your lead and leave out references to 'immigration' as it's clearly an emotive word that comes adorned with some very weighty baggage. Instead, let's look at population growth and ignore the reasons for it and the specific measures - if any - that may or may not need to be in place to control it.

Would you not accept that there is a level beyond which population increase is not sustainable and that public service provision will not keep pace with demand? Also, would you not accept that even if there was more than enough money to pay for the required housing, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure etc., we wouldn't be able to build it all fast enough? And, even if we could, this relatively small island wouldn't be a 'green and pleasant land' for much longer - it would become one large concrete jungle. At this rate, Plymouth and Exeter will eventually merge to form one massive urban sprawl: are you comfortable with that? So, my contention is that we've already embarked on this journey and that a stitch in time saves nine. Therefore, IMO, something needs to be done asap to bring down population growth to more sustainable levels.
Tim.
 
Heaven forbid that we stick our noses in foreign affairs militarily--we've done enough already. There has to be another way to stop the strife that is taking place in Africa and ME. Civil wars cause extreme poverty and misery to countless millions, who were poor, to begin with.

These poor peaople move. Where? Prosperous countries with more stable and tolerant governments.

Where? Europe, for one. That means us. If we don't like it we have to stop it at source. Stopping people at the border, when they, already, have nothing to lose, fills them with dread at the prospect of trekking all that way home again, so they camp where they are.

So, until we stop the strife at source, they'll keep on coming.
 
Just saw on the news, Irish women are denied abortions in Ireland so they come over to the UK to have them.

Whilst any other medical treatment is free for them they have to pay for their abortions at private clinics.


Why is this so? Out of respect for their DUP laws persecuting and restricting human rights because of other peeps religion.


On the other hand, having the baby means much conflict, strife and hard ship for both mother, reluctant father, those relatives and ultimately society. Do we need to mention the quality of life this new born baby is likely to live?

Laws in Europe way ahead of supporting humane and civil rights of individuals imo.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/14/europes-abortion-rules---no-single-policy
 
cantagril said:
Yes....but the qualification is that with a stable population the lag will reduce to a less catastrophic level and then itself stabilise.
Click to expand...


We will always have the lowest possible quality of public services, as the worst provision is also the cheapest provision. With a strong economy, the numbers dependent on public service provision can be minimised so less will go further, and the total harm suffered across the population will be minimal.
 
timsk said:
Would you not accept that there is a level beyond which population increase is not sustainable and that public service provision will not keep pace with demand? Also, would you not accept that even if there was more than enough money to pay for the required housing, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure etc., we wouldn't be able to build it all fast enough? And, even if we could, this relatively small island wouldn't be a 'green and pleasant land' for much longer - it would become one large concrete jungle. At this rate, Plymouth and Exeter will eventually merge to form one massive urban sprawl: are you comfortable with that? So, my contention is that we've already embarked on this journey and that a stitch in time saves nine. Therefore, IMO, something needs to be done asap to bring down population growth to more sustainable levels.
Tim.
Click to expand...

Arrrrggh Tim. You set me up then you knock me down.

I do not agree. Public service provision will always be the cheapest and therefore lowest quality available. So even a stable population, even a shrinking population, even a tiny UK population of immense personal wealth levels, will always suffer a rubbishly minimal level of public service provision. Because its cheaper.

The physical loss of the majority of UK countryside is not something I worry about. Don't forget we're talking about the UK now having a population over 6 times greater than in 1801 and we're still able to appreciate that most of the country is rural and should be protected. But in 1801, if you had been able to convince people that the population would rise to more than 60 million, they would have said something very much like, I suspect, what you have just said about Exeter and Plymouth. They would have been wrong too.

But another point is also worth a mention - would you say the country and the 10 million population as a whole in the UK were richer in 1801 or 2017?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
European Level 2 question
Replies
1
Views
3K
theknifemac
theknifemac
C
New! eSignal MarketCenter 3
2 3
Replies
41
Views
10K
Ghost Dog
G
Atilla
Trump Presidency and the Consequences
160 161 162
Replies
3K
Views
367K
Atilla
Atilla
N
trading for prop shops
Replies
1
Views
7K
Directional
Directional
B
companies listed on more than one exchange
Replies
3
Views
2K
grantx
G
Back
Top