The cost of Brexit for us; the ordinary people

welcome back! you didn't go far GG

Much as you would like to, these threads cannot be cosy little chats between like minded people, they need opening up to the fresh air.

Groan....not 'post-factualism' again, let's drop that silly word into a deep dark well.

I will catch up with you later DD but that is very much along the lines of my thoughts too. The problem being can your persuade everyone it is in all our interests? Have a good day. I am off to mum's so will be off here too.

dd just before you go!!

You questioned Malthus and Utopia.

Malthus gleaned the concept of a Utopian society from the enlightenment - the period which was his main influence. He accepted and wanted the possibility of a Utopian society, but argued that was was impeding the progress to such a society was the level of poor and "misfits". Get rid of them he argued and we can progress further to this wonderful society. Remind you of a later political narrative in Germany in the 30s?

dd those who are ill, disabled or a child, are being supported,by the State.What you further propose is either Socialism in a very refined sense, or Communism.
perhaps you are more left wing than you thought?
Nothing wrong with that, if you are, it's a free country, but you said on another thread that you agreed with Capitalism.

Playground antics are just so tedious.
Political threads which end up in head-nodding between like-minded people can be tedious too.

If people with different views than the usual try to air them then it seems that their names, their terminology etc are questioned more than their views; yes, name-calling is quite puerile and presumably against GN rules if a post is deleted. That is why posters leave the political threads to the head-nodders and why these threads had become so one-sided - and boring.

It is interesting to see the thread opened up with people who have robustly different views to the coterie of usual posters, whether one agrees with any of the posters or not.

The OP questioned financial cost - we can predict as the IMF may predict, the Bank of England may predict, Richard Murphy may predict - but in fact no-one knows.
The 'experts' have been proved wrong so many times in the past and in fact anyone who has a view or even a crystal ball has a chance of being just as accurate (or inaccurate as the case may be).

Now, back to RL.

whitewave said
The question I would very much like answered mair is how you see a Malthusian UK developing?

Much as it is now WW with the population growing far faster than our country's capacity to support it. We are alr

The question I would like you to answer now is how do you see an open borders Britain with a rapidly growing population (equivalent to a city the size of Coventry every year or Glasgow every two years) developing?

Correction

We are already over populated way beyond our carrying capacity of about 25 million.

It now seems to be trendy to not take notice of "opinion" "experts"!

If I remember correctly, dd is the poster who wants a world with only one leader.
I think that is very left wing?

mair you are making a lot of assumptions about what I want. I am afraid that you way off the mark.

A population of 25million -hmm.

Two questions

How do you arrive at that figure

How do you propose we achieve that figure

What defines us as 'over populated' Mair? Who said? We have only built on 15% of the country.

Your question to Whitewave assumes there is nothing between not letting anyone in and 'open boarders'. Be positive - mankind is infinitely creative and there have always been solutions available to the government - they have just chosen not to use them.

You also assume that all those who don't agree with your view on immigration whole heartedly want to be part of the Union. That is just not case. Many who voted remain or leave were concerned about sovereignty, peace, etc., but either bit the bullet and voted leave knowing and regretting they would be associated with views like yours or bit the bullet and voted remain, because they did not want to be associated but knowing that if that vote had been a few percentage more sovereignty would still be a problem.

The vote was not to limit immigration; it was to leave the EU. As I have said before, you are fighting old battles. The likelihood is, in my opinion, that some way will be found - either in or out of the single market - to limit the immigration to those coming for jobs. I also think this number will be very little different to what it would have been anyway.

If I remember correctly, dd is the poster who wants a world with only one leader. I think that is very left wing?

Interesting question mark Ankers. Surely it could be very left wing, very right wing or an Eden, a Shangri-La, or Utopia run benignly in a way we cannot yet contemplate.

WW
mair you are making a lot of assumptions about what I want. I am afraid that you way off the mark.

As have you about me, in your taking my light hearted remark about the Mathusian and Cornucopian tendency to mean that I am a die hard follower of the economist.

But as I have answered your point, it would be nice if you could clarify your own stance on population growth? A debate is a two way street you know, not the Spanish Inquisition (although the globalist hard left would love to revive that I fear!)

I got the impression eons ago that Mair wanted the same as most people who voted to leave Re immigration. Of course we need migrants but what we/ I don't want is the world and his wife turning up at Victoria coach station with no job, no home, and no money.
I know this sounds harsh to some of you but it's not doing us any good and it's certainly not doing the migrants any good.

Just double checked the amount of land that has been built on and I am wrong. It was only 12.7%. There is an article here. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

I have not joined in this debate as I don't have an intimate knowledge of the subject but wonder if GG is seriously suggesting we build all over our countryside? Many parts of the UK are unsuitable for building (flood plains, mountains etc) Also, according to the Eurostat, the UK has the highest population density in Europe.

Exactly Petra

On amounts of land built on, it's not just about how many available fields we have left ,
unless we want to build so much that one village melds into another, but villages and towns need infrastructure and even more need somewhere for people to work.
There will probably need to be a couple of new towns created in the Home Counties.

That's right sunseeker we can't build in very many places for various reasons.

mair I take your point that you are not a die hard Malthusian, but it is a very interesting choice to have as an influence, and you have certainly studied the Reverend sufficiently to understand the basic tenants of the theory.

Actually is it less than that GGMk2

the 12.7% is woodland I think,
The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.

according to Mark Easton quoting the ONS.

I suppose it is relative - if you live in the over-crowded south-east of England you may well think that we are over-populated but if you live in the Scottish Highlands you may need binoculars to see your neighbour.

Never mind, we are going to have some lovely new towns and villages; let's hope they build the infrastructure to cope at the same time.

About 71%+ of land is agricultural. We can't just build on that and as the population increases we will need to produce more food.

And, of course, the National Parks which do have buildings on them but very restricted planning - which the government wanted to relax to the detriment of us all. I'm not sure if the policy has changed but I doubt it.

England: 10 National Parks cover 9.3% of the land area

Wales: 3 National Parks cover 19.9.% of the land area

Scotland: 2 National Parks cover 7.2% of the land area

Plenty of room in Scotland by the look of it.

How do you propose we achieve that figure
euthanasia of all the old grannies?

I'm sure you meant to say 'tenets' whitewave - presumably he didn't have lodgers in his theory!

We are already over populated way beyond our carrying capacity of about 25 million.

(Makes the UK sound like a lorry)

I don't understand where this figure comes from. Is this some theoretical 'optimal maximum population'... for where? The UK?

As we were up to about 64 -65 million in 2015 (sources differ) I, like ww am interested to know how we are supposed to reduce the population to 25 million. (The UK population was last at 25 mill. in the latter part of the 19th century)

I have suggested a way.
Men too, let's not be selectively sexist here