And a hell of a lot of those are retired older Brits who moved to paces like south west Ireland and Spain and such, places they can move to because of freedom of movement, and yet most of them vote to leave. Go figure.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
They're not listening.
Especially worrying when you get to my age.
Well said that man.
Just goes to show how some people can make such rediculous statements based up little or no knowledge.
Sort of explains the Brexit vote.
Not only do they benefit from freedom of movement, as eldery people they’ll be heavy users of state-funded healthcare while paying zero tax.
Hence a far more significant drain on other EU countries resources than the younger immigrants they perceive as such a burden to the UK. Selfish selfish cnuts.
It's clear.
Again, my personal opinion and priority is greater integration between European countries. I’m in favour of a Euro-superstate, in favour of a European army and hell, even in favour of a superleague for the footy. Things like the death penalty are hardly make-or-break, in that context, but rather just a personal preference.
Also, a general note with “overpopulation” - I agree that the bigger issue is an aging population, but I don’t really see any easy or obvious answers to that. I’m already likely to have to work until I’m at least 70, and don’t really like the prospect of the retirement age continuing to increase. Voluntary euthanasia would at least be a start (strictly controlled, blah blah blah).
Quite agree but that isn't going to stop those who are hell bent on turning the EU into a Federal Europe.
To be fair it's not the case the vast majority are in Canada, the US and Australia, less than 1.5m are in the EU and the way they are distributed tells me that a large amount are probably working. Now this makes the debate even more interesting because the UK are a counter example since british people move to similar or poorer countries where they take jobs.
On a side note France and Spain are far bigger than the UK, there is space and we have fresh water. So if you really are struggling we can always take the jobs and the poles.
One suspects that a lot of those who look around and see their country as being "overwhelmed" by immigrants subconsciously (and more rarely consciously) include second, third and fourth generation immigrants too. Less about how many foreigners there are, more about how many "foreigners" it seems there are.
You could be right but in that case we will be talking about demographics instead of population which would open the pandora box.
I've heard west Cork (which is beautiful) is extremely expensive because of them too as they zap up all the homes and basically live there for free then. Absolute twats.
Move to France before the end of next week!
Thank you for the invitation. I will let you know when I am coming.
I have no idea why anyone who's spending their winters in Spain voted leave, but it's clear that some of them did. You'll know that if you're of state pension age in the UK you can get free comprehensive healthcare in other European countries, as if you were in the UK - you get a form called the S1, if I recall correctly.
This will stop after Brexit, and they'll have to pay into the national healthcare system of whichever country they're living in. I can tell you that private insurance is simply not affordable if you have anything wrong with you - we paid nearly 3000 euros for one year of cover, with an excess of 3000 euros! The Italian health service is not cheap to sign up for if you have a decent occupational pension, but it's a far more reasonable and comprehensive option that trying to find private cover - but you have to commit to being a resident.
There's plenty of room and we promise not to give you a lethal injection.
This is correct anyway.
Every single day there are less people born than the one before.
At the moment the population is going up. Within 50 years the population will stabilise at about 10 billion
What is wrong with that. Ireland is perfectly fine with freedom of movement isn't it.
That is a relief. Keep the lethal injections for your guests who voted to leave.
If we build a few oorbital rings, we could increase the human population by 10 or 100 fold.
Stop worrying
Stop worrying
I'd opened up a tab on that very video you posted yesterday, just hadn't gotten a chance to watch it yet! Will do soon. On the subject of hysteria, Retro Report have done some great journalism on precisely that subject and one report focused on overpopulation too. I think it's worth a watch, it's retelling stuff we already know but frames it well:
So yes on a broad level, I wholeheartedly agree that hysteria around overpopulation is unlikely to be useful. Before watching the video, let me clarify my (unquestionably simplistic) view. I'm not saying we should embrace depopulation to prevent overpopulation, I'm saying I don't think we should avoid depopulation just because it creates significant economic problems. Let's see if we can find a way to tackle those economic problems, and assess the significance of the non-economic benefits.
What we know is that we currently don't have a framework for a functioning society that is mostly "old", despite the fact that this is very much a reality we will have to face. To try and deal with that problem while sticking rigidly within our current framework, we've had to go out and recruit more young folks to deal with the "burden" of old folks. As a result of that, we've damaged the social cohesion of the country, because a significant portion of the population are uncomfortable about the implications of significant levels of immigration. So far we've not been very good at repairing or preventing the damage done to the social cohesion, and we know it creates significant problems. Yet our only plan currently is to amp that up significantly, while the society continues to get older.
I just think we're far too wedded to our current idea of how a society should function, that we're unwilling to consider different economic, political and other models that might be better suited to dealing with this new reality. Perhaps there is a better model out there that wouldn't need continuous population growth to fuel its economic system, and deals with the problems of an ageing society. I'm not saying there's an obvious answer, but that we should at least be open to the idea that the way we organise ourselves right now actually is't optimal on any level, and might be particularly unsuited to the future we're rapidly moving towards.
Generally speaking the arguments on this subject are based on the assumption that what we need to do is find a way to deal with this new reality that allows us to continue doing what we're doing. If our folks keep having fewer babies then we need more of those babies from elsewhere. Letting our population decline, even briefly? Literal madness! That's just not a good starting point to deal with this tricky problem, IMO.
Since I've been tarred with that brush for being one of those awful, awful people that argues against the demonisation of the other as a strategy to achieve your own political objectives, I'll take this one on.
We know you like hyperbole but let's introduce a bit of reality back into it. Maybe you do encounter a few loons that say you can't say bad things to people you disagree with. You can't even tell them the truth if that upsets them. The idea that the a majority of any group are saying that is ludicrous, though, and we both know that. Most people on that side of the argument are not saying "you must not say this" and instead simply saying "it doesn't work in your favour to say this, it's mostly self-serving, and as long as you're cool with that feel free, let's just not paint it as something else".
Yes let's introduce some uncomfortable facts to people on the other side of the argument, and if there's no logical, factual argument that refutes it, let's entertain the notion that the argument wasn't made on logic at all. It could be good to listen to people and find out what their views were based on if not that. If they're uninterested in addressing the logical flaws in their argument, then it makes total sense to be pissed off that they made a potentially life-changing decision based on things they either didn't understand, or refuse to justify. If that decision has negative outcomes, or if you predict it to have negative outcomes, feel free to tell them the harm that it causes other people and what that makes you think of them. Just don't expect them to appreciate that, in the same way you wouldn't appreciate it in reverse.
If you need to move beyond that position to calling them idiots, liars and racists, then it makes you a bit of dick. We're all entitled to be dicks whenever we choose, but don't hold it against other people when they uphold that social norm. People that make significant errors of judgment are not idiots, otherwise we're all idiots, and the term becomes meaningless. People that are uncomfortable with the impact of immigration are not racists, and refusing to challenge that assumption just because you're much more comfortable with multiculturalism is an act of ignorance. We're all ignorant of many things, but demonising the other for their ignorance as a result of your own ignorance is unlikely to be constructive.
It's possible to be against the demonisation of the other, and to challenge other people's views on significant issues. I'll do it right now.
We were dictating the rules of entry for non-EU citizens, and we didn't curb immigration in any way. Look at the numbers man. We can say conclusively that being part of the EU wasn't the cause of the immigration issue you perceive, and leaving the EU to dictate the rules of entry will not solve that problem. The facts are clear-cut on that one.Why won’t it be fixed? If we are dictating the rules of entry, then I don’t share that view.
Anyway, spent way too much time on this thread during the course of today, I’m off, so we’ll agree to disagree
Reasonable people can disagree on whether the amount of immigration we've had in recent years is a good thing or a bad thing, but you can't agree to disagree on the basic facts of the matter. Being in the EU was not the cause of those immigration levels, the primary driver was the Non-EU immigration levels, which we already have control of, and which has increased significantly as a result of Brexit.
Can you agree that leaving the EU isn't a solution to that problem, in light of those facts? Or can you see why it is difficult for people to understand your perspective if you're unable to agree on the same basic set of facts, which might lead them to alternative conclusions about your motivations?
Last edited:
There are less people born today than there are yesterday. There will be less people born tomorrow than there were today.
The "final" world population will be about 10 billion, an increase of "only" 50% in 100 years. In the 20th century, the world population increases 500%
Then we conquer death and all bets are off. But we'll be building orbital rings around space and most of humanity will live off of Earth. Most of Earth will be a giant nature reserve.
The "final" world population will be about 10 billion, an increase of "only" 50% in 100 years. In the 20th century, the world population increases 500%
Then we conquer death and all bets are off. But we'll be building orbital rings around space and most of humanity will live off of Earth. Most of Earth will be a giant nature reserve.
I moved into London in the back end of the noughties and in the 10+ years I feel like there has been significant increases in crowding, traffic and competition for jobs.
Yes the population of the world might be unexplainable as going through stages, but what this doesn't show is what is happening in the UK or London specifically.
These stats flow over generations, but you can have inter generational issues that take time to correct.
People generally will be against more people and especially where the makeup of those people change, whether culture, wealth, language, interests, etc. Over time some of these barriers remove. An example is Indian food which people originally called smelly and gross and it's now the UK's number one dish, with predominantly non Indian families using those takeaways as most Indians prefer to cook themselves.
What doesn't go away is the population/ wealth/ competition issues. And maybe some such as religion which can cause division. I think a lot of the anti EU opinion defines this, as the EU are far closer aligned in many characteristics than other foreigners that have come to the UK over time. However, we are at a point where people are noticing the differences more and they just want it to stop.
My opinion is we need to control migration through stats and education. E.g. the Australia type system. Control the net number of movement and ensure the right education people are coming in. This will ensure a more effective population so to speak. We also need to control population at the poorer end, e.g. a cap on births or some system that penalises having kids that results in needing benefits.
I would rather 5 more educated Europeans than 5 more kids squeezing the benefits system.
How this is done is the challenge. Someone who can afford kids shouldn't necessarily be restricted. Someone who cant afford kids can't necessarily be forced into abortion, so what's the alternative...some form of forced contraception? It's highly highly controversial as an idea, but it could solve so many more issues.
You really should have read the previous few posts.
So what are the odds of no deal right now?
Putting it another way.
What are the odds of May and Corbyn agreeing to something sensible and then parliament agreeing to it and then the EU agreeing to it?
Yup. My parents own a house in Spain and spend a good few months of the year over there, and yet my dad voted leave. I have had some fairly heated arguments with him on the topic. He claims that it was a matter of sovereignty, and that he didnt like the unelected EU officials making laws. He also seems to think that every other leave voter thought the same as him, and that immigration was never one of the major reasons.
Its particularly odd because for the most part he is a pretty intelligent bloke.
It's London Specifically. The population density of London is 52 people/hectare. Basically 52 people living in an area the size of a EPL football pitch. The average for England is 4.1 people/hectare. That means we could give every family of 4 their own football pitch to live on. There are areas of the country where next to no one lives. The South West for example has a population density of 2.2.
The problem is not that the country is overpopulated but that companies and government are centralising all their jobs in 1 city.
Just posting this here, for no particular reason:
https://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion/
https://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion/
Edit: The actual average household in the UK is currently 2.4 not 4.2 I remember from when I was at school so 2 households would have to share the football pitch.
@Mockney, just watched the video, very interesting. Will read up on the sources later. In the same way I think the speculation about the population bomb greatly exaggerated our own capacity for predicting the future, I'm very sceptical that we're similarly able to predict the future of the entire planet in that one simple line chart of gradually slowing population growth in those final two phases. The patterns we perceived in the past are not foolproof indicators of the future. However I agree it is compelling.
If their predictions do turn out to be broadly true then I think it further underlines the issue with our current model of economic prosperity based on continuous population growth, and further undermines the short-term approaches we're taking to deal with the problem of an ageing society. I'm actually in the process of (read: failing miserably, but enjoying) writing a book about that particular issue, hence my focus on it in here within the context of overpopulation, immigration etc. If you come across similarly interesting stuff, I'd be grateful if you could throw some my way!
If their predictions do turn out to be broadly true then I think it further underlines the issue with our current model of economic prosperity based on continuous population growth, and further undermines the short-term approaches we're taking to deal with the problem of an ageing society. I'm actually in the process of (read: failing miserably, but enjoying) writing a book about that particular issue, hence my focus on it in here within the context of overpopulation, immigration etc. If you come across similarly interesting stuff, I'd be grateful if you could throw some my way!
Last edited:
I find it hard to feel sympathy for anyone who's enjoyed the benefits of free movement, but doesn't want other people to have it. Are your parents planning to keep their house after Brexit? They won't be able to stay for months at a time as Brits.
I reckon a lot of people will be selling up, and property prices will fall. It's very hard to sell anything in Italy, the market has been completely stagnant for years - and our house is very old, the sort of property Italians don't want. It's much easier to stay here and sell up in England.
Just have. And...
90 day visa free travel I think... Worst case scenario a boarder run to gibralta for a cup of coffee and back again... I did this for a couple of years in Thailand and you just learn to build it into your schedule.
That said the non lucrative (aka wealth visas) are pretty easy to obtain in Spain compared to some other places so @Walrus folks may well be able to attain one of those?
I have a property I rent out on Spain so I have a more than passing interest in this but so far I've not really encountered anybody with any concerns other than regarding the e111
Probably as close to zero as makes no difference.
It is becoming clear that rather than TM genuinely trying to find a common approach with Labour, she has reverted to type and has no intention of charge or comprise.
More like just going through the motions so as to be able to blame Labour and Corbyn in particular.
Even her most loyal followers concede that she is totally inflexible.
That is why the negotiations with the EU have been such a problem.
It's 90 days per 180 days proposed which means the cup of coffee would have to last 3 months.
The problems for UK citizens will be those relying on their UK pensions which if the pound collapses yet again will be worth very little plus relying on reciprocal health arrangements which will no longer apply.
I know plenty of OAP's who have already, in the process of or seriously thinking about returning and they all were remainers.
It's anecdotal but surely not unusual and I live in a pretty sparsely populated area.
maybe you could respond to mine then
She's had one consistent plan that hasn't changed for a long time, she gives the impression of attempting to address each available alternative whilst in reality closing them off as unachievable, until a final vote before parliament between her deal or no deal the next day. Yeah, I know she's said 'parliament has voted against no deal' but if she ensures nothing else is agreed in the meantime then that will be the choice, her deal or no deal. It's moving the deadlines that's her problem, but that will end eventually.
I recall that discussion a while back but admittedly don't recall you providing me with sources - it's a busy thread so I've missed those I apologise.
Nevertheless, if we're going to talk about Norway, there's surely got to be a recognition that they're a different case to us? They've never been in the EU, so they haven't adopted those rules in the first place. We'd be abandoning them in your hypothetical scenario...but which key rules are we abandoning? Is there actually any benefit in doing so, or are we just wasting our time? Does it take into account that Norway's economy is incredibly different from ours, and that they're a country of a different size?
Not to mention that your own preference for a Norway-style approach completely ignores that you aren't necessarily of a majority opinion when it comes to Brexit - plenty just want to burn the whole system to the ground and will accept nothing less than a hard Brexit which cuts immigration dramatically. The Norway solution doesn't necessarily solve the customs issue with Northern Ireland, and it's an approach that's been ruled out on plenty of occasions. While we gain control over certain sectors that are under EU remit right now, we're still ultimately operating under the four main freedoms, which is what Brexiteers don't like.
If you want Remainers to argue in good faith then you need to accept not all Brexiteers are pursuing logical, coherent solutions to the whole thing, and you need to accept the initial arguments in 2016 were presented in incredibly bad faith to the point where had it been a legally binding referendum, it would've been declared invalid due to legal problems.
Yes, a lot of the British winter travellers to the warm parts of Europe have low incomes. They've been able to survive by living in mobile homes or even caravans, they get their pensions and free healthcare plus Brit-style cheap food in the resorts. It's less expensive to live abroad, where you don't need to have the heating on for months at a time.