Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on June 26, 2016, 07:13:33 AM
-
Until Cameron invokes article 50 of the Lisbon treaty we are still part of the EU with all its benefits and curtails.
This was not a legally binding referendum, in fact, it was nothing more than just an opinion poll.
The government does not have to act on it, if it so chooses it can just turn around a say; thanks for your opinion but you can just fuck off. We're staying in the EU, but thanks for showing the rest of the world how racist we are!!
-
RACIST !?!?!? Economist, no.?
BTW The 'government' has ALWAYS told us to Fuck Off & did whatever it damn well pleased, regardless !!!
Nick
-
RACIST !?!?!? Economist, no.?
BTW The 'government' has ALWAYS told us to Fuck Off & did whatever it damn well pleased, regardless !!!
Nick
I agree with your last paragraph, Nick - after all, when did the ruling party last actually have a majority of the votes? Maggie in 1979?
-
I agree with your last paragraph, Nick - after all, when did the ruling party last actually have a majority of the votes? Maggie in 1979?
1931
-
We're staying in the EU, but thanks for showing the rest of the world how racist we are!!
Last night I looked at a table showing worldwide population densities. Interestingly, the only countries that are of a size comparable with England (130,000 km2,) or bigger and which have a higher population density, are Bangladesh (a bit bigger than England) and South Korea (about 2/3 the size of England).
Given this data, is it racist to want to limit immigration?
I suppose we could limit the number of children per family?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density
-
Last night I looked at a table showing worldwide population densities. Interestingly, the only countries that are of a size comparable with England (130,000 km2,) or bigger and which have a higher population density, are Bangladesh (a bit bigger than England) and South Korea (about 2/3 the size of England).
Given this data, is it racist to want to limit immigration?
I suppose we could limit the number of children per family?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density
This is nonsense. The Netherlands and Belgium both have significantly higher population densities than the UK
-
This is nonsense. The Netherlands and Belgium both have significantly higher population densities than the UK
Please read the post and the link. I was not talking about the UK. England is the third most densely populated country of its size and among countries of a greater size, in the world. NL and Belgium are quite a lot smaller.
England's population density is 407 per km2. Netherlands is a third the size of England and has the same pop density.
-
This is nonsense. The Netherlands and Belgium both have significantly higher population densities than the UK
Yeah, but, if you don't limit the examples down to those that give the answer Spud wants, then Spud won't get the answer he's already decided is the right one.
-
Please read the post and the link. I was not talking about the UK. England is the third most densely populated country of its size and among countries of a greater size, in the world. NL and Belgium are quite a lot smaller.
England's population density is 407 per km2. Netherlands is a third the size of England and has the same pop density.
Why does absolute size make any difference. Why artificially limit it to England?
-
Why does absolute size make any difference. Why artificially limit it to England?
All I'm trying to do is show that England has a relatively high population density and that it matters more for England than, say, the Netherlands, because more people are affected.
-
Until Cameron invokes article 50 of the Lisbon treaty we are still part of the EU with all its benefits and curtails.
This was not a legally binding referendum, in fact, it was nothing more than just an opinion poll.
The government does not have to act on it, if it so chooses it can just turn around a say; thanks for your opinion but you can just fuck off. We're staying in the EU, but thanks for showing the rest of the world how racist we are!!
What a silly post.
~TW~
-
All I'm trying to do is show that England has a relatively high population density and that it matters more for England than, say, the Netherlands, because more people are affected.
Why not just limit it to London? Then you'd get a really high population density.
-
Why not just limit it to London? Then you'd get a really high population density.
And Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, and all the other cities which are crammed into 130,000 square km. I'm beginning to think I should feel obliged to move to France to make room for people moving here.
-
By the way folks, I think I've solved the mystery of the low pitched hum that has kept me awake for years. I phoned the council and spoke to a new Environmental officer. He said it is the nearby M20 motorway. This makes a lot of sense because the hum completely stops on Christmas Day. And it tails off between about 2 - 4 am.
This came to mind because I was thinking about how the M25 now has 4 lanes in some places and yet it is still a car park, and getting worse.
-
And Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, and all the other cities which are crammed into 130,000 square km. I'm beginning to think I should feel obliged to move to France to make room for people moving here.
Lovely, leafy, airy, open places. Birmingham (which I know well) never fails to amaze me with the quantity of open space within its boundaries. And, compared to Paris, London is very green.
If you want plenty of people living in a limited space - go to Tokyo (population 35,000,000). Try to get on a train at Shinjuku or Ikebukuro during the rush hour.
-
Right let's look at the figures.
Spud says our population density is 407 per square km. Let's take that at face value. Current EU immigration is about 170,000 people per annum. That means that, in 10 years there would be an extra 1.7 million people if it stayed that way. That's about a 2% increase in the current population. So for each square km there would be an extra eight people.
Or, in schools (assuming no new ones are built) a class of 30 might become a class of 31 or might not. If you go to A&E and there are 50 people there, in 10 years there would be 51.
Is really such a big deal? No, it isn't. The immigration debate has been whipped up out of all proportion to the size of the actual problem and it has been done so to frighten Little Englander into making a bad decision in the referendum.
-
Lovely, leafy, airy, open places. Birmingham (which I know well) never fails to amaze me with the quantity of open space within its boundaries. And, compared to Paris, London is very green.
If you want plenty of people living in a limited space - go to Tokyo (population 35,000,000). Try to get on a train at Shinjuku or Ikebukuro during the rush hour.
Absolutely spot on and I agree with jp's post which follows yours.
-
But density of the land and the density of poulated areas are two different things. I remember seeing the head teacher of a school in Goole who had 400 pupils in a school built to accommodate 200.
Perhaps had governments used some of the money generated by what they kept telling us was "good for the economy" and built or extended schools.
Same with GP surgeries.
Perhaps had they realised that a home was now unaffordable for many people and invested money in construction, forced the greedy housebuilders to build, or lose the land they were sitting on.
Perhaps had the Government not allowed so much of the housing stock go to the hands of the greedy buy to let crew.
Perhaps had they not let some of the grievences just fester, manna from heaven for Boris, Farage and their ilk
-
But density of the land and the density of poulated areas are two different things. I remember seeing the head teacher of a school in Goole who had 400 pupils in a school built to accommodate 200.
You don't solve that problem by shutting immigrants out. You solve it by building more schools.
Perhaps had governments used some of the money generated by what they kept telling us was "good for the economy" and built or extended schools.
Same with GP surgeries.
Perhaps had they realised that a home was now unaffordable for many people and invested money in construction, forced the greedy housebuilders to build, or lose the land they were sitting on.
Perhaps had the Government not allowed so much of the housing stock go to the hands of the greedy buy to let crew.
Perhaps had they not let some of the grievences just fester, manna from heaven for Boris, Farage and their ilk
I can't disagree with this. Essentially politicians are using immigration as a scapegoat for not spending money on our infrastructure.
-
Right let's look at the figures.
Spud says our population density is 407 per square km. Let's take that at face value. Current EU immigration is about 170,000 people per annum. That means that, in 10 years there would be an extra 1.7 million people if it stayed that way. That's about a 2% increase in the current population. So for each square km there would be an extra eight people.
Or, in schools (assuming no new ones are built) a class of 30 might become a class of 31 or might not. If you go to A&E and there are 50 people there, in 10 years there would be 51.
Is really such a big deal? No, it isn't. The immigration debate has been whipped up out of all proportion to the size of the actual problem and it has been done so to frighten Little Englander into making a bad decision in the referendum.
You didn't add non-EU migration which adds another 100,000 + to the net figure, and population growth due to birth rate exceeding death rate.
According to this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England
the population of England has doubled in the last 125 years.
Since 2006, net immigration has been significantly higher than before 2006.
In or out of the EU we probably won't stop the population increasing. If the world population goes up, so will the UK's.
However, if we take the approach whereby we build more in order to accommodate more, fields that we see from our windows now will one day be gone, and the country will become less and less able to support itself in the event of a crisis, since the source of our food is fields.
-
You didn't add non-EU migration which adds another 100,000 + to the net figure, and population growth due to birth rate exceeding death rate.
Errr, leaving the EU will do nothing to immigration figures from outside the EU. We can stop the 120,000 non EU immigrants whenever we want.
The UK population would not be growing at all if it were not for immigrants but it would be ageing which gives us a whole new set of problems when we are all too old to generate the money needed to support the pensioners.
According to this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England
the population of England has doubled in the last 125 years.
It's not going to double in the next 125 years.
Since 2006, net immigration has been significantly higher than before 2006.
In or out of the EU we probably won't stop the population increasing. If the world population goes up, so will the UK's.
However, if we take the approach whereby we build more in order to accommodate more, fields that we see from our windows now will one day be gone, and the country will become less and less able to support itself in the event of a crisis, since the source of our food is fields.
As I said before, in 10 years time there will be an extra 8 people per square kilometre or maybe 12 if we don't stop non EU migration and immigration levels remain at the current historic high.
Anyway, since we have just managed to show the World that we are a bunch of racist xenophobic arseholes, and the economy is tanking, I don't think immigration is going to be a problem for much longer.
Well done Leavers.
-
Anyway, since we have just managed to show the World that we are a bunch of racist xenophobic arseholes,
Of course you could turn that around because quite often you find it is the immigrants who are the racist ones.
-
We can stop the 120,000 non EU immigrants whenever we want.
But we can't limit the EU migrants whenever we want. And if they mirror each other, as someone said they do - and I don't understand the reasons, so am guessing here: then we need to be able to limit both in order to limit either of them.
-
But we can't limit the EU migrants whenever we want. And if they mirror each other, as someone said they do - and I don't understand the reasons, so am guessing here: then we need to be able to limit both in order to limit either of them.
someone said Jesus didn't exist. So ergo by your logic he didn't
-
Of course you could turn that around because quite often you find it is the immigrants who are the racist ones.
52% voted against immigrants. Racist incidents have increased dramatically since Brexit. The perception of the English outside of the UK is that we are a bunch of nasty insular xenophobics. It doesn't matter that some Leave voters might have voted Leave for other reasons, the damage to our image has been done.
-
But we can't limit the EU migrants whenever we want.
No, but, if immigration is such a huge problem, why haven't we already stopped the immigrants we can stop?
And if they mirror each other, as someone said they do - and I don't understand the reasons, so am guessing here: then we need to be able to limit both in order to limit either of them.
The reason they mirror each other is because immigrants come here to get work. Immigration roughly follows the economy and we are not doing anything serious to stop any of it.
As I said, we could stop all non EU migrants coming in tomorrow, but we don't. Think on that.
-
Incidentally, if we stopped all non-EU immigration, we would actually reduce the total immigration from 333,000 to only 56,000 per year, at least for a year or two.
-
No, but, if immigration is such a huge problem, why haven't we already stopped the immigrants we can stop?
I would guess because we haven't tried? Perhaps we subconsciously apply the principle of free movement, which we have to adhere to with the EU, to the rest of the world?
The reason they mirror each other is because immigrants come here to get work. Immigration roughly follows the economy and we are not doing anything serious to stop any of it.
That doesn't explain why they are roughly the same, though?
As I said, we could stop all non EU migrants coming in tomorrow, but we don't. Think on that.
-
I would guess because we haven't tried?
Err, yes. But why haven't we tried?
Perhaps we subconsciously apply the principle of free movement, which we have to adhere to with the EU, to the rest of the world?
Immigration policy is set by a government minister. There's nothing subconscious about it.
-
52% voted against immigrants. Racist incidents have increased dramatically since Brexit. The perception of the English outside of the UK is that we are a bunch of nasty insular xenophobics. It doesn't matter that some Leave voters might have voted Leave for other reasons, the damage to our image has been done.
Remember the riots in 2011? People felt strongly about things like spending cuts, iirc. But people have a tendency to overreact, and if the riots that summer hadn't already damaged our reputation I would be surprised. Clearly some people have been affected by mass immigration, and some of them have used the Brexit vote as an excuse to vent their feelings.
The vote was not, I hope, against immigrants per se, but against uncontrolled immigration.
-
I think some economists argue that stopping immigration would collapse the economy. Reducing it to 'tens of thousands' would be pretty disastrous. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if they experiment with it. I see a possible deal with an emergency break is being mooted. I think they will have certain industries as exempt from restrictions, e.g. farming and construction and catering.
-
Just read an Independent article from May, which says that before the post-communist Eastern European countries joined the EU in 2004, there was much less immigration. At the time, Labour decided we wouldn't apply any movement restrictions to these countries as other existing member states did; and so we had 50,000 coming in per year for the next 8 years, the initial estimate having been 13,000.
-
This is nonsense. The Netherlands and Belgium both have significantly higher population densities than the UK
Belgium have a lot of Muslims. Isn't Brussels in Belgium the head of the EU?
Whatever we don't want any. We are British and we want to rule ourselves having ruled two thirds of the world almost at one point. I think we know what is best for us.
I want to live in freedom to choose my religion or not. To make the decisions for our country ourselves and keep the freedom our ancestors died for.
We have a royal family and we can say who comes here and who can't.
So I don't see any reason for us being the EU.
-
Belgium have a lot of Muslims. Isn't Brussels in Belgium the head of the EU?
So?
Whatever we don't want any. We are British and we want to rule ourselves having ruled two thirds of the world almost at one point. I think we know what is best for us.
If you want to live in the past, that's fine. I wish you wouldn't drag the rest of us back with you.
Also, the British Empire is finished. Get over it.
I want to live in freedom to choose my religion or not. To make the decisions for our country ourselves and keep the freedom our ancestors died for.
Good for you. So do I and being in the EU helps safeguard that freedom.
We have a royal family and we can say who comes here and who can't.
What has the Royal Family got to do with it? You realises it symbolises a time when we had no say in who made the decisions for our country?
So I don't see any reason for us being the EU.
That's because you are a small minded xenophobic inward looking person with no vision for a future encompassing more than this little island.
-
Whatever we don't want any. We are British and we want to rule ourselves having ruled two thirds of the world almost at one point. I think we know what is best for us.
I want to live in freedom to choose my religion or not. To make the decisions for our country ourselves and keep the freedom our ancestors died for.
I think I get it.
We were extremely successful at invading other countries, taking them over, subjugating the residents of those countries, removing local raw materials for our own benefit, imposing our religion and cultural values on the residents.
And because we were so good at doing all that we should be left in isolation so that we can congratulate ourselves at how rapacious and greedy we were and spend the rest of eternity living in the past.
-
...
What has the Royal Family got to do with it? You realises it symbolises a time when we had no say in who made the decisions for our country?
...
I think she means we had the royal family from Europe, and we wouldn't want any more like them?
-
Belgium have a lot of Muslims.
Belgium has about 600,000 Muslims.
The UK has about 2,700,000.
We win!
We have a royal family
...as does Belgium!
-
Belgium has about 600,000 Muslims.
The UK has about 2,700,000.
The population of Belgium is only 11 million in total. In terms of muslims per head, they win.
-
The population of Belgium is only 11 million in total. In terms of muslims per head, they win.
I am aware of that but Her Sassyness didn't mention anything about population density!
-
I am aware of that but Her Sassyness didn't mention anything about population density!
That would have involved using numbers. Numbers imply precision and accuracy. Precision and accuracy are characteristics of objectivity.
Objectivity has no place in any Sassy diatribe.
-
So?
A needle pulling thread.
If you want to live in the past, that's fine. I wish you wouldn't drag the rest of us back with you.
Without the past there would be no present. We don't want to forget those who gave their lives for the freedom we now
enjoy and we should cherish.
Also, the British Empire is finished. Get over it.
The truth is that relations still exist between Britain and some countries from the empire now in the commonwealth.
So the results are still evident in the relations it formed.
Good for you. So do I and being in the EU helps safeguard that freedom.
In your dreams you talking about the EU? We would have lost the right to make decisions over who came into our Country.
Get your head out of the sand. Seems you got the fairytale and not the reality.
What has the Royal Family got to do with it? You realises it symbolises a time when we had no say in who made the decisions for our country?
Now whose living in the past? The Royal Family our Queen symbolises something more important in this day and age.
The relationship we have with other Countries has a lot to do with her entertaining foreign dignitaries and keeping good relations going.
That's because you are a small minded xenophobic inward looking person with no vision for a future encompassing more than this little island.
Talk about small, narrowed and closed minded. You've got the hat-trick. Xenophobic not at all. A realist that we cannot let people who consider life disposable (even the innocent) for their cause come into our country. Nor the reality that we do not have the means to support all those people. Given the fact that the poor, impoverished, disabled, mentally ill and the elderly have been crippled financially because of this Government, then I don't believe it is worth the cost for foreigner of any race outside our own to be accommodated in GB unless they can financially support themselves and are not of a terrorist group or known terrorist active religion.
I really don't have time for brown nosed opinions of those who are simply thinking of their own gain and not the affect of those poor in our nation.
-
Without the past there would be no present.
Without the Sun there would be no life on Earth, but I don't want to live in that either.
The truth is that relations still exist between Britain and some countries from the empire now in the commonwealth.
So the results are still evident in the relations it formed.
But note how the EU doesn't prevent us from having those relations.
In your dreams you talking about the EU? We would have lost the right to make decisions over who came into our Country.
Who is this "we" you are talking about? Are you under the impression that you personally will have a say in who comes into this country?
Talk about small, narrowed and closed minded. You've got the hat-trick. Xenophobic not at all. A realist that we cannot let people who consider life disposable (even the innocent) for their cause come into our country.
The last major terrorist attack in this country was perpetrated by British citizens.
Nor the reality that we do not have the means to support all those people.
Yes we do. As a proportion of the total population, the current level of immigration is tiny and easily managed.
Given the fact that the poor, impoverished, disabled, mentally ill and the elderly have been crippled financially because of this Government
That's the same government that you want to give more control to.
I really don't have time for brown nosed opinions of those who are simply thinking of their own gain and not the affect of those poor in our nation.
What about the poor people in other nations?
-
Without the past there would be no present. We don't want to forget those who gave their lives for the freedom we now
enjoy and we should cherish.
This deserves a separate reply.
In the last few hundred years, Europe has been beset by internal conflict. In many cases Britain, although on the sidelines, has not turned its back on its European neighbours but has stepped in, usually on the side perceived to be morally right.
In the Napoleonic wars we fought against the political hegemony of France with other countries in Europe and helped overthrow a dictator in control of the most powerful army in history. Many British people gave their lives.
In the Crimean War we fought with France and Turkey against Russian land grabbing. Many British people gave their lives.
In the First World War, we threw in our lot with France again. Many British lives were lost.
In the Second World War, we fought against Hitler's empire building. Many British lives were lost.
Britain has a history of facing up to crises in continental Europe, often at great cost. Now, nobody would claim that the EU is in a crisis rivalling that of the Second World War (except Jack Knave), but it has its problems that need to be sorted out. And here we are running away.
Sassy, contrary to forgetting about the British people who gave their lives for the cause in the past, we shame them by running away from the current challenge.
-
Err, yes. But why haven't we tried?
Immigration policy is set by a government minister. There's nothing subconscious about it.
Spoke to someone today who said (I haven't checked this) that non-EU immigration is high because people from the rest of the world are using EU human rights laws to get into the country. So the EU tells Britain who, from the rest of the world, it has to allow in.
-
Spoke to someone today who said (I haven't checked this) that non-EU immigration is high because people from the rest of the world are using EU human rights laws to get into the country. So the EU tells Britain who, from the rest of the world, it has to allow in.
No, the Human Rights Act was set up by Blair in 1998 specifically as a 'nice little earner' for his missus.
-
Spoke to someone today who said (I haven't checked this) that non-EU immigration is high because people from the rest of the world are using EU human rights laws to get into the country.
But that is obviously bollocks.
-
Spoke to someone today who said (I haven't checked this) that non-EU immigration is high because people from the rest of the world are using EU human rights laws to get into the country. So the EU tells Britain who, from the rest of the world, it has to allow in.
That sounds like total garbage to me!