The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Bluebarge said:
Stick. Wrong end of. Seized. You have.
Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
Love it, uses Monaco as example, the only reason it works iis because its like a police state with cameras everywhere, along with a very high proportion of very rich people, but perhaps it would work here, minimum of £1 million and you can come in, oh I forgot you want to let in lots of people with nothing.Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
Bluebarge said:
Scuffers said:
Bluebarge said:
The Channel Islands have a population density which is double that of England, yet holidaymakers still flock there for its scenery and way of life. See? it's a complete red herring unless you are approaching the type of population densities found in some poorly-planned 3rd World cities. Which we're not.
talk about red herrings!how is people going on holiday somewhere got anything to do with migration numbers?
If I go and stay in the Atlantis hotel (the Palm in Dubai), the density of people per square mile must be immense as it's a multi-story hotel with several people per room.
How is that in any way relevant to permanent housing for migrants? or are you suggesting we start building 60's style high-rise shoe boxes again?
Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
Guam said:
Oh and we are not the only ones having issues with this problem, I fully expect those in favour of mass migration from the third world to head over to Germany to protest 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/595991/Germany...
Erm, call me cynical but given that Germany have been one of the biggest proponents of free movement, and now they want to change age-old laws to deal with this crisis .. just saying ..http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/595991/Germany...
PRTVR said:
Bluebarge said:
Stick. Wrong end of. Seized. You have.
Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
Love it, uses Monaco as example, the only reason it works iis because its like a police state with cameras everywhere, along with a very high proportion of very rich people, but perhaps it would work here, minimum of £1 million and you can come in, oh I forgot you want to let in lots of people with nothing.Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
How about Malta?- much more densely-populated but works; or Singapore or HK? - all places that work fine with much higher population densities. That's why it's a red herring - well-designed cities can accommodate lots of people.
FiF said:
Dave_lotus said:
FiF said:
Dave_lotus said:
Except of course that far more immigrants end up in France than the UK
Do they? EUstats say emphatically not true by a very long chalk. Figs for 2013.
So France accepted 50% more, yet has a population approximately the same as UK but covers a much larger area and thus has a population density less than half that of UK.
it is strange how so many of us love going to France, and other European countries, and pay money to get / be there, and yet the immigrants want to come to the cold bleak crowded UK? what could possibly make them think that way?
For the immigrants, other European countries such as Southern France, and the Mediterranean countries would feel much more like home to them, and offer the sort of jobs they can actually do on arrival.
If many of us had the chance to settle in the lovely hot, Southern France, Italy, Spain, etc or a cold, bleak, wet, expensive, over crowded UK. I would suspect quite a few, would be going for their passports..... If they had one that is.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Wednesday 5th August 12:06
Bluebarge said:
Stick. Wrong end of. Seized. You have.
Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
so, you completely ignore the point that London if it was a country, could not survive (without the rest of the UK)?Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
simple things like utilities (no power stations in London, nothing like enough reservoirs), no farmland, bugger all industry, etc etc etc.
being simplistic just makes you look even more stupid.
Yes, we could support more population in the highlands of Scotland, BUT that would require massive investment in infrastructure, and let's face it, who wants to go there?
Scuffers said:
Bluebarge said:
Stick. Wrong end of. Seized. You have.
Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
so, you completely ignore the point that London if it was a country, could not survive (without the rest of the UK)?Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
simple things like utilities (no power stations in London, nothing like enough reservoirs), no farmland, bugger all industry, etc etc etc.
being simplistic just makes you look even more stupid.
Yes, we could support more population in the highlands of Scotland, BUT that would require massive investment in infrastructure, and let's face it, who wants to go there?
The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in food since the Industrial Revolution. Power plants (except CHP) are not built in cities because they don't need to be - that's what the National Grid is for. Drinking water can likewise be shipped from elsewhere (and is) and is not in short supply in the UK. London has plenty of jobs - some are in industry - but they don't need to be; as has the rest of England including the South-East.
This idea that immigrants are only suited to an agrarian lifestyle is twaddle. Your post would only make sense if London were some post-apocalyptic landscape where people lived off what they could grow themselves.
It's a red herring - sorry.
Bluebarge said:
Erm, it's not me that's making dumb points,
The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in food since the Industrial Revolution. Power plants (except CHP) are not built in cities because they don't need to be - that's what the National Grid is for. Drinking water can likewise be shipped from elsewhere (and is) and is not in short supply in the UK. London has plenty of jobs - some are in industry - but they don't need to be; as has the rest of England including the South-East.
This idea that immigrants are only suited to an agrarian lifestyle is twaddle. Your post would only make sense if London were some post-apocalyptic landscape where people lived off what they could grow themselves.
It's a red herring - sorry.
sorry, but you are, simple as.The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in food since the Industrial Revolution. Power plants (except CHP) are not built in cities because they don't need to be - that's what the National Grid is for. Drinking water can likewise be shipped from elsewhere (and is) and is not in short supply in the UK. London has plenty of jobs - some are in industry - but they don't need to be; as has the rest of England including the South-East.
This idea that immigrants are only suited to an agrarian lifestyle is twaddle. Your post would only make sense if London were some post-apocalyptic landscape where people lived off what they could grow themselves.
It's a red herring - sorry.
Name me another country that has the same population density as London that is NOT 100% dependant on it's neighboring countries to survive.
Places like Monaco only exist because they are havens for the seriously rich, who got rich outside of Monaco.
Scuffers said:
Bluebarge said:
Erm, it's not me that's making dumb points,
The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in food since the Industrial Revolution. Power plants (except CHP) are not built in cities because they don't need to be - that's what the National Grid is for. Drinking water can likewise be shipped from elsewhere (and is) and is not in short supply in the UK. London has plenty of jobs - some are in industry - but they don't need to be; as has the rest of England including the South-East.
This idea that immigrants are only suited to an agrarian lifestyle is twaddle. Your post would only make sense if London were some post-apocalyptic landscape where people lived off what they could grow themselves.
It's a red herring - sorry.
sorry, but you are, simple as.The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in food since the Industrial Revolution. Power plants (except CHP) are not built in cities because they don't need to be - that's what the National Grid is for. Drinking water can likewise be shipped from elsewhere (and is) and is not in short supply in the UK. London has plenty of jobs - some are in industry - but they don't need to be; as has the rest of England including the South-East.
This idea that immigrants are only suited to an agrarian lifestyle is twaddle. Your post would only make sense if London were some post-apocalyptic landscape where people lived off what they could grow themselves.
It's a red herring - sorry.
Name me another country that has the same population density as London that is NOT 100% dependant on it's neighboring countries to survive.
Places like Monaco only exist because they are havens for the seriously rich, who got rich outside of Monaco.
The point that you are still not getting is that hardly any countries are now self-sufficient. They all rely on neighbours or far-away countries for something essential whether that be food or energy. The UK was importing 50% of its food requirement in 1939, when the population was 45 million, so whether it, or any other country, could be self-sufficient now is spectacularly irrelevant.
Bluebarge said:
Excellent name-calling. Your form teacher must be really proud.
The point that you are still not getting is that hardly any countries are now self-sufficient. They all rely on neighbours or far-away countries for something essential whether that be food or energy. The UK was importing 50% of its food requirement in 1939, when the population was 45 million, so whether it, or any other country, could be self-sufficient now is spectacularly irrelevant.
the the point you're missing is this,The point that you are still not getting is that hardly any countries are now self-sufficient. They all rely on neighbours or far-away countries for something essential whether that be food or energy. The UK was importing 50% of its food requirement in 1939, when the population was 45 million, so whether it, or any other country, could be self-sufficient now is spectacularly irrelevant.
whilst few countries are self-sufficient, they all have something to trade.
the only exceptions to this are places that are small and have a population that's made up of high net worth people who have moved there for tax reasons.
London as a country could not survive on it's own, period.
Bluebarge said:
well-designed cities can accommodate lots of people.
Ye, but we're not over-endowed with those and they take a long time (and no little money) to build. We haven't had the building to match the last ten years of immigration and population growth and we are not (yet) properly prepared for more.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-...
In any case, no city is an island and a growing population needs investment within the whole infrastructure; health, education, transport.
Scuffers said:
London as a country could not survive on it's own, period.
But who is calling for London to survive on its own??????I am making the point that the population density argument is a red herring in the immigration debate because the UK can potentially absorb many more people. Whether it wants to, what sort of people and over what period is a different argument, but the idea that the UK (or London) is full is nonsense, as demonstrated by many successful countries and city-states with much higher population densities.
There is not a city on earth that could survive without a significant hinterland and, outside of some medieval siege, they don't have to. Just as most modern countries would grind to a halt in a few weeks without oil supplies or food imports.
I have absolutely no idea why you have this obsession with self-sufficiency. This side of Armageddon, it's not required.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, the original vote was for the lifting of trade barriers. Voting 'out' now would not close those barriers, we would to continue to trade just the same, including of course with the probably more important non-EU countries as we currently do. The whole lefty EU wealth distribution scheme / gravy train can go fester without us. steveT350C said:
Well, I would not have expected that from someone with his business.
steveT350C said:
Sir Rocco Forte: Europe project 'a complete disaster'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34008919
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34008919
NicD said:
steveT350C said:
Well, I would not have expected that from someone with his business.Rocco is absolutely spot on about the Europe project.
But his detractors will just rattle that old 'he's old.'
Which is true. He's 70.
...with a very, very wise head on his shoulders!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff