Europe: In or Out

[Deleted member 22389]

the country was doing reasonably fine before we had tony blairs purposely orchestrated influx of immigrants, i cant recall seeing a pitiful declining NHS as we see it today and nor can i recall seeing a shortage of school places and come to think about it our pensioners weren't doing that bad either as compared to today's standard of care shown towards them..
finally if we do manage to get it right and are successful in curbing immigration how can you predict a population of 30 odd million ?

I agree, I don't remember being any of these problems either. There is simply no point in mass immigration if this goes on to effect your own quality of life. There is more to life than sodding money, and one of those is your personal space and not this dreadful feeling that your country is being sold down the river.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

finally if we do manage to get it right and are successful in curbing immigration how can you predict a population of 30 odd million ?

Its all demographics. Birth-rates are 1.75 amongst indigenous UK women and falling, it needs to be 2.1 just to replace the population, so anything below that leads to a shrinking population. This has been going on for some time so there is a massive population bulge of people 35-50 years old, when we all start dying in our droves that will cause a big population drop. 6 or 7 years ago when the overall British birth rate was at its lowest, the prediction was a contraction to 30 million people in 100 years (provided zero immigration).

Actually we still have one of the highest birth rates in Europe, Italy's is 1.2, Germany 1.4. So this is a big decision for Europe, accept this shrinkage of population and economy, or keep pushing for economic growth and encourage immigration from outside the EU. It seems clear which will be chosen (is being chosen) by the ruling classes.

This graph shows the population distribution in Britain, that nice big bulge is where I am (41) and many others here. 25 years ago we were all entering the working population, so of course things were good, lots of new young workers leads to growth and more tax income and so on. But down the bottom you can see population growth slowing, quite dramatically really. So you can imagine when me and the rest of us are retired and expecting pensions and an NHS to look after us, there aren't going to be many people left to pay taxes and look after us. Fine you might say, I'll happily say, but the standard of living won't be great.

Thats where immigration comes in. At the very bottom of the graph you can see the population of 0-5 year olds getting bigger relative to the 5-12 year olds. Thats completely driven by immigration - immigrant women are having more babies than indigenous women, one in four babies born last year was to a mother born outside the UK.



This is serious question for you, for me, for everyone. If we want the standard of living to remain high and a welfare state preserved to look after today's 40-50 year olds when we retire, then we will have to accept that the workforce paying for it will be composed 25-50% of immigrants and children of immigrants. Or we can close the borders, keep our identity, accept a contraction in our economy and change the way we look after the elderly in future. I'm not being obtuse here, I don't particularly like the cultural consequences of the first choice. I'd choose zero immigration if I could but as it is not going to happen, I think that I would rather that our additional workforce is from the rest of europe rather than from outside europe.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The problem with the we need immigrants to fund our retirement argument seems to fall down when you consider the fact that (surprise surprise) immigrants get old too. You need ever larger numbers of immigrants to sustain ever increasing numbers of elderly people.

It's all about balance, not mass immigration or zero immigration but controlled immigration with our hand on the lever.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The problem with the we need immigrants to fund our retirement argument seems to fall down when you consider the fact that (surprise surprise) immigrants get old too. You need ever larger numbers of immigrants to sustain ever increasing numbers of elderly people.

It's all about balance, not mass immigration or zero immigration but controlled immigration with our hand on the lever.

Yes, absolutely, thats the fundamental problem with a captialist society based on growth. You have to keep growing or it all falls down horribly. I recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, a tale of societies that reached the limit of growth and then it all went rather wrong, Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, Rwanda, and others, and examples of where it might be happening today

It doesn't change the fact we need either (a) immigration or (b) a baby boom to fund our retirement

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Yes, absolutely, thats the fundamental problem with a captialist society based on growth. You have to keep growing or it all falls down horribly. I recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, a tale of societies that reached the limit of growth and then it all went rather wrong, Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, Rwanda, and others, and examples of where it might be happening today

It doesn't change the fact we need either (a) immigration or (b) a baby boom to fund our retirement

There needs to be a limit.

 

[Soulman]

Its all demographics. Birth-rates are 1.75 amongst indigenous UK women and falling, it needs to be 2.1 just to replace the population, so anything below that leads to a shrinking population.
.

Just to address this point. The population has been rising rapidly especially in the last 15 years. So the population in your stats may shrink, but the alternative at the moment with mass immigration means that it is rising and the country can not meet the demand imo.

"Since 1964 the population of the UK has grown by OVER 10 MILLION people (18.7%). About half of this growth has occurred since 2001.

Over the earlier part of this period population change was driven mainly by variation in the number of births. Population grew throughout the 1960s up until the early 1970s mainly as a result of the 1960s baby boom; while over the rest of the 1970s growth was subdued, reflecting falling fertility. The very large birth cohort of 1960s baby boomers beginning to have children saw births, and hence the population, grow again in the 1980s, but births declined again through the 1990s.

A time series of UK births and deaths data on a calendar year basis is available in the Population and Health Reference Tables published by ONS.

Since 2001 there have been high levels of net inward migration, adding to the population at younger working ages. In part this was driven by the expansion of the European Union in 2004 and 2007. This period has also seen an increasing number of births, driven by both the immigration of women of childbearing age (15-44) and rising fertility among UK-born women.

When do you think the population of this country should level out?. Or are we heading from the 2nd most densely populated country in Europe to becoming the 1st.

 

[nicko31]

The problem with the we need immigrants to fund our retirement argument seems to fall down when you consider the fact that (surprise surprise) immigrants get old too. You need ever larger numbers of immigrants to sustain ever increasing numbers of elderly people.

It's all about balance, not mass immigration or zero immigration but controlled immigration with our hand on the lever.

Part of the problem is we have the baby boomer generation are taking a lot more out of the system than they ever put in, the cost final salary pensions from the private and public sectors is huge and someone has to pay for it. Even more a public sector salary is enhanced by 25-30% but a crazy pension scheme which just keeps on giving

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

There needs to be a limit.

Yeah, I'm anti-immigration. But I'm pro-staying in Europe. Most of our immigration is from outside the EU so if we can't control that then being in or out of Europe is an irrelevance as far as immigration as concerned. And at least EU-immigration is beneficial to our economy and quality of life (i.e. Spanish flair right-backs and Belgian flair wingers).

and I have no faith that any UK government wants to control immigration, for all the reasons given above.

 

[Soulman]

The problem with the we need immigrants to fund our retirement argument seems to fall down when you consider the fact that (surprise surprise) immigrants get old too. You need ever larger numbers of immigrants to sustain ever increasing numbers of elderly people.

It's all about balance, not mass immigration or zero immigration but controlled immigration with our hand on the lever.

Exactly, as much as many on here seem to like to state that anyone who is concerned with the amount of immigration should receive the usual labels, the vast majority have only wanted CONTROLLED immigration and the power to decide that amount.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Just to address this point. The population has been rising rapidly especially in the last 15 years. So the population in your stats may shrink, but the alternative at the moment with mass immigration means that it is rising and the country can not meet the demand imo.

"Since 1964 the population of the UK has grown by OVER 10 MILLION people (18.7%). About half of this growth has occurred since 2001.

Over the earlier part of this period population change was driven mainly by variation in the number of births. Population grew throughout the 1960s up until the early 1970s mainly as a result of the 1960s baby boom; while over the rest of the 1970s growth was subdued, reflecting falling fertility. The very large birth cohort of 1960s baby boomers beginning to have children saw births, and hence the population, grow again in the 1980s, but births declined again through the 1990s.

A time series of UK births and deaths data on a calendar year basis is available in the Population and Health Reference Tables published by ONS.

Since 2001 there have been high levels of net inward migration, adding to the population at younger working ages. In part this was driven by the expansion of the European Union in 2004 and 2007. This period has also seen an increasing number of births, driven by both the immigration of women of childbearing age (15-44) and rising fertility among UK-born women.

When do you think the population of this country should level out?. Or are we heading from the 2nd most densely populated country in Europe to becoming the 1st.

It can never level out as long as our government pursues a policy of growth.

Its actually an interesting coalition this, right-wing anti-europe peoples and left-wing anti-captalist types.

 

[nicko31]

Yes, absolutely, thats the fundamental problem with a captialist society based on growth. You have to keep growing or it all falls down horribly. I recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, a tale of societies that reached the limit of growth and then it all went rather wrong, Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, Rwanda, and others, and examples of where it might be happening today

It doesn't change the fact we need either (a) immigration or (b) a baby boom to fund our retirement

Its true look at Japan

 

[Soulman]

It can never level out as long as our government pursues a policy of growth.

Its actually an interesting coalition this, right-wing anti-europe peoples and left-wing anti-captalist types.

So when do you think this country and it's infrastructure will cease coping. If half of the growth since 1964 has been since 2001 (good old Labour) which means around 5M, then in 15 years time it will have risen by at LEAST another 5M, do you think that is ok?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

So when do you think this country and it's infrastructure will cease coping. If half of the growth since 1964 has been since 2001 (good old Labour) which means around 5M, then in 15 years time it will have risen by at LEAST another 5M, do you think that is ok?

Well I dunno, I'm not going to answer for the captalist growth-mongers, I'm anti-captalist, remember (or sympathiser, perhaps). I'm also anti-immigration, as per my post above:

Yeah, I'm anti-immigration. But I'm pro-staying in Europe. Most of our immigration is from outside the EU so if we can't control that then being in or out of Europe is an irrelevance as far as immigration as concerned. And at least EU-immigration is beneficial to our economy and quality of life (i.e. Spanish flair right-backs and Belgian flair wingers).

Its a key distinction too that the europeans are largely here to work, they're not becoming citizens of the UK like the non-EU immigrants

 

[Gwylan]

Its true look at Japan

Japan is a really good example. The country is beginning to accept that its hostility to immigration is causing it serious problems which is why it's looking at taking off the brakes - not without some serious debate and a reluctance to relax the policy.

One of those articles sets out the problem clearly: "According to a government statistical projection of Japan’s population issued in January 2012, if current trends are maintained, the population will decline from the 128.06 million in 2010 to 86.24 million by 2060, with people over age 65 accounting for 40% of the total. More worrisome, the working population—regarded for statistical purposes as people between the ages of 15 and 64—- dropping from 82 million to 44 million."

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...ers-its-shores-bestselling-author-calls-their
http://www.japantoday.com/category/...on-the-way-to-becoming-a-nation-of-immigrants

Germany has similar problems: which is why Merkel's desire to house more refugees isn't entirely altruistic

 

[cunning fergus]

Look, I normally agree with you, but..........
Defending his country - fine. Expanding his country's territory by military means (covert or otherwise) - not fine: not by a long chalk. The bloke gives a worrying impression of being out of control.

The US's actions in South America are far from blameless - but it is their own back yard, They are not destabilising the world order by what they've done. Not good, certainly; infinitely less dangerous.

Russia's assistance in bombing the f*** out of ISIS is fine; unfortunately they're using that as an excuse to bomb the Kurds (strange that they're at odds with Turkey on this: they both appear to hate the Kurds with equal venom).

Surprised? No. Was it right? No. Was it murder? Yes. Is murder right? No.

Unfortunately, I fear the Russian's loose cannon is in the process of losing it.

That's OK GT, its good we are not cloned on our views!

I will get to the nub of why this whole episode of the ESA/Russia and the EU vexes me.

I am not surprised if Russia reacts agressively to events precipitated by the West, the Ukraine unrest is a case in point (Russia's front yard) which was formented by the EU actively encouraging an insurgency against its democratically elected head of state. This individual may have been corrupt, and in Putin's pocket however we are either for democracy or not. Russia's reaction is entirely predictable and is consistent with the West when they choose to sponsor a side in a civil war (as per Syria). The motives of Russia and the West are not that different, this is about geo political power projection.

Russian spies killing double agents may well be murder, are you suggesting the UK/US is not invlved in the same? It would appear both the US and Russia is capable of bombing hospitals right?

The reality now is that Ukraine is in flux and the West has imposed trade sanctions on Russia, including the EU. The consequences of this should be understood because in the case of eastern european farmers their markets to the east have been switched off. This is causing a glut of commodities like milk which is driving proces down to unsustainable levels.

http://www.france24.com/en/20160215-france-angry-farmers-blockade-vannes-protest-falling-prices

This has been happening for a while despite our media keeping it quiet.

Which then brings us to the ESA and the billions of euros of funding it receives from the EU taxpayers both via EU and their national governments some of which is being directed to Russia to assist with a collaborative space exploration.

It seems to me, when EU farmers are being impoverished by EU trade sanctions with Russia then the EU should not be directing millions of euros to Russia for vanity projects, and not least because it visibly undermines their own trade sanction logic. Those millions of euros should be directed to the EU farmers affected by the sanctions by way of subsidy.

But that's the EU.............mad as a box of frogs.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

the country was doing reasonably fine before we had tony blairs purposely orchestrated influx of immigrants, i cant recall seeing a pitiful declining NHS as we see it today and nor can i recall seeing a shortage of school places and come to think about it our pensioners weren't doing that bad either as compared to today's standard of care shown towards them..
finally if we do manage to get it right and are successful in curbing immigration how can you predict a population of 30 odd million ?

The country wasn't doing 'reasonably fine' before Tony Blair's decision (mistaken, but not 'purposely orchestrated') to allow in migrants from new EU countries. It has been sliding down most European league tables faster than an Alan Pardew football team since the 50s. We really mustn't imagine some golden pre-EU age that didn't exist. On your other points, I don't have figures but I would have thought that the effect of EU migration on the quality of the NHS's service is, on balance, benign. And you're wrong about pensioners getting an ever-worsening deal - because the over-65s are more likely to vote, they have been looked after better than other groups in recent years.

 

[Hamilton]

That's OK GT, its good we are not cloned on our views!

I will get to the nub of why this whole episode of the ESA/Russia and the EU vexes me.

I am not surprised if Russia reacts agressively to events precipitated by the West, the Ukraine unrest is a case in point (Russia's front yard) which was formented by the EU actively encouraging an insurgency against its democratically elected head of state. This individual may have been corrupt, and in Putin's pocket however we are either for democracy or not. Russia's reaction is entirely predictable and is consistent with the West when they choose to sponsor a side in a civil war (as per Syria). The motives of Russia and the West are not that different, this is about geo political power projection.

Russian spies killing double agents may well be murder, are you suggesting the UK/US is not invlved in the same? It would appear both the US and Russia is capable of bombing hospitals right?

The reality now is that Ukraine is in flux and the West has imposed trade sanctions on Russia, including the EU. The consequences of this should be understood because in the case of eastern european farmers their markets to the east have been switched off. This is causing a glut of commodities like milk which is driving proces down to unsustainable levels.

http://www.france24.com/en/20160215-france-angry-farmers-blockade-vannes-protest-falling-prices

This has been happening for a while despite our media keeping it quiet.

Which then brings us to the ESA and the billions of euros of funding it receives from the EU taxpayers both via EU and their national governments some of which is being directed to Russia to assist with a collaborative space exploration.

It seems to me, when EU farmers are being impoverished by EU trade sanctions with Russia then the EU should not be directing millions of euros to Russia for vanity projects, and not least because it visibly undermines their own trade sanction logic. Those millions of euros should be directed to the EU farmers affected by the sanctions by way of subsidy.

But that's the EU.............mad as a box of frogs.

Sorry, but can I just clarify something? Are you saying that our government's participation and funding of ESA is another reason to leave the EU?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The problem with the we need immigrants to fund our retirement argument seems to fall down when you consider the fact that (surprise surprise) immigrants get old too. You need ever larger numbers of immigrants to sustain ever increasing numbers of elderly people.

It's all about balance, not mass immigration or zero immigration but controlled immigration with our hand on the lever.

I bow to others in my knowledge of this subject, but I am sure I have seen that EU migrants in the UK are disproportionately of working age - they tend to arrive as fit young adults and leave before they come old. They rely on the state less than than the rest of us.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Really think this poll needs closing and restarting on maybe a monthly basis, to better reflect current thinking. If nothing else, those who voted 'Undecided' may well now be decided.

 

[cunning fergus]

Sorry, but can I just clarify something? Are you saying that our government's participation and funding of ESA is another reason to leave the EU?

No, I am highlighting the savage consequences of EU trade sanctions on Russia for farmers particularly in eastern europe and contrasting it with the relationship the ESA has with Russia.

As the ESA's funding is only from the EU and the national governments in Europe (note taxpayers are stung twice), and the objectives of ESA are shared with the EU Commission why is it that EU taxpayers money is being transferred to Russia so that ESA has astronauts in space?

At a time when we are entering a new cold war with Russia this relationship seems strange and at odds with the EU's objectives of isolating Russia on the world stage.

Who do you think should get the millions of euros?

Russia for sending Tim Peake into space, or Farmers crippled by the loss of acces to the Russian market?