We're not "out"-We're still in.

[Ricky Spanish]

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!!

[trippymonkey]

RACIST !?!?!? Economist, no.?

BTW The 'government' has ALWAYS told us to Fuck Off & did whatever it damn well pleased, regardless !!!

Nick

[Hope]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Spud]

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

[jeremyp]

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

[Spud]

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.

[SqueakyVoice]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

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.

[~TW~]

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~

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[JP]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[jeremyp]

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.