I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
So Gideon has managed to cut the bill in half, what a guy!
Wait, what's that?
Sky's Europe Correspondent Robert Nisbet says it appears the EU will still get the full £1.7bn as a result of what he said some would call "clever accounting".
Nisbet explained: "Next year there will be two instalments that will equal £850m that will be paid to Brussels by the UK and it will get its rebate in full. So far so good.
"But the following year, in 2016 it appears that Britain won't be getting all of its rebate back, it will be the rebate minus £850m.
"So in effect Britain over the next few years is still going to be paying about £1.7bn but it’s going to be done in a way that spreads the pain over a couple of years."
Oh.
Still good for the UK though, since we don't need to start paying interest on the £850m we'd have to borrow to pay the EU until next year (and a year's interest on £850m is a lot of money, would pay for a lot of nurses/teachers etc.).
And better than Labour or the Lib Dems would do, since they seem determined to give away as much money and sovereignty to the EU as possible.
Or is it all posturing, smoke and mirrors?
What Lab / Lib plans to increase in contributions to the EU are you referring to??
What proposed handover of sovereignty ??
The Government would have known about this for a long time it's been blown into and issue and "resolved" ( although that appears highly questionable) a week before UKIP take another Tory seat.
Looks like cynical manipulation to me.
When Labour were last in power they surrendered a large portion of our rebate and were responsible for the biggest transfer of powers from the UK to the unelected EC since the creation of the common market.
Furthermore, both Labour and the LibDems are members of groups in the European Parliament that call for more money and powers to be transferred to the EU, and the LibDems actively campaign for the EU to gain greater sovereignty over the member nations.
The point about renegotiating the rebate is debatable.
I have just read the entire Labour manifesto for thr EU elections and there is nothing whatsoever requiring a surrender of sovereignty.
Being pro Europe doesn't mean rolling over - it means being at the centre fighting for this Country and a reformed EU. Currently we are very isolated with very little influence.
I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
We have more than enough space. "Infrastructure grinding to a halt and roads jamming up completely" sounds like I'm watching a film. Britain is not bordering on an overcrowding problem, we're not going to be paving over any parks to build towerblocks, dear me. That's just anti-immigration rhetoric. It's just another way of saying you don't think we're 'special' so we shouldn't have to share.
I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
Realistically speaking, yes, we can fit another 10 million or so in and it wouldn't mean concreting over every last square inch of land, however as it has been mentioned before we currently have one of the highest population densities within the EU and that figure factors in land which is either uninhabitable or would be prohibitively expensive to begin developing, of which there is a lot of that kind of land in the UK. The other EU countries which offer a similar level of welfare to us have far more space than us, it's not a case of us thinking we're special, it's a case of why the other EU countries think they're special in not having to share.
The population density of greater London is over 4.5 k per square km, yet over 7 million manage to live here. There's loads of space. As long as the government plan it properly and invest in the infrastructure. Them there are bog its and require long term cross party consensus. Good luck with that...
I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
If you currently live in London, then I suppose you're used to living on top of each other and are probably not worried by the big increase in population.
In Kent however, we're seeing a lot of new large housing developments proposed and most of these are on green belt land. For instance, planning permission has been granted for a development of 5000 dwellings at Lodge Hill near the Medway Towns. This is a site of Special Scientific Interest and if built, land important for biodiversity will be lost forever.
Another green field site at Gibraltar Farm between Lordswood and Hempstead has a planning application for 450/500 dwellings. Traffic in this area at peak times is already at saturation point and you only have to get one incident on the main road network and everything comes to a complete halt.
Only this week, Maidstone came to a complete halt because of a suspected fire in the middle of the town and the traffic problems caused were experienced right back to the Medway towns.
There are many other large developments proposed throughout the county and the infrastructure cannot cope already, so these will only make things worse.
I don't want to see beautiful countryside lost forever because we have lost control of population growth.
So Gideon has managed to cut the bill in half, what a guy!
Wait, what's that?
Sky's Europe Correspondent Robert Nisbet says it appears the EU will still get the full £1.7bn as a result of what he said some would call "clever accounting".
Nisbet explained: "Next year there will be two instalments that will equal £850m that will be paid to Brussels by the UK and it will get its rebate in full. So far so good.
"But the following year, in 2016 it appears that Britain won't be getting all of its rebate back, it will be the rebate minus £850m.
"So in effect Britain over the next few years is still going to be paying about £1.7bn but it’s going to be done in a way that spreads the pain over a couple of years."
Oh.
Still good for the UK though, since we don't need to start paying interest on the £850m we'd have to borrow to pay the EU until next year (and a year's interest on £850m is a lot of money, would pay for a lot of nurses/teachers etc.).
And better than Labour or the Lib Dems would do, since they seem determined to give away as much money and sovereignty to the EU as possible.
Or is it all posturing, smoke and mirrors?
What Lab / Lib plans to increase in contributions to the EU are you referring to??
What proposed handover of sovereignty ??
The Government would have known about this for a long time it's been blown into and issue and "resolved" ( although that appears highly questionable) a week before UKIP take another Tory seat.
Looks like cynical manipulation to me.
When Labour were last in power they surrendered a large portion of our rebate and were responsible for the biggest transfer of powers from the UK to the unelected EC since the creation of the common market.
Furthermore, both Labour and the LibDems are members of groups in the European Parliament that call for more money and powers to be transferred to the EU, and the LibDems actively campaign for the EU to gain greater sovereignty over the member nations.
I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
We have more than enough space. "Infrastructure grinding to a halt and roads jamming up completely" sounds like I'm watching a film. Britain is not bordering on an overcrowding problem, we're not going to be paving over any parks to build towerblocks, dear me. That's just anti-immigration rhetoric. It's just another way of saying you don't think we're 'special' so we shouldn't have to share.
I'm pro Europe and broadly pro EU, although I think it needs reforms. (Show me a major institution that doesn't). However one of the things I have learnt from CL when this debate has been at its best (hats off to @Covered End and @Addickted for making me re-address deeply held convictions) is that we need to take this overcrowding debate seriously. Especially those of us who are pro-European, otherwise the anti-foreigners will take over the debate, and win.
When I left the UK for Prague soon after we returned to the Valley the population was 54m. I understand that it is now over 60m. The only other EU country I can find that has had a similar percentage increase in this period is Sweden. But that increase is from 8m to 9m in a much, much bigger land area. It is a huge problem and it must surely affect people's daily lives. It starts with the pressure on the NHS, and quickly moves into housing (of course prices go shooting up, there is excess demand) and transport. It distorts discussion on other matters. For example pro-privatisation nutters argue that privatising the railways is a success because they carry more passengers. Of course they do, you muppets, because the population - the market - has grown by 6m and all these people have to get around somehow.
However it is far less clear that this population growth has ben fuelled by EU membership. We urgently need reliable data on this in order to have a decent debate. If there really are so many more EU immigrant here than in, say, Germany, its not obvious to me that they all came here because of the fabulous weather or the smiling welcoming natives. Maybe it is because the benefits system (or the perception of it) is out of line with the rest of Europe.
I think this is why Cameron is not receiving support from other northern EU states who agree with him on many reform issues. They think he is using the EU as an excuse when there are several other causes of population growth too, and they think he can and should fix those causes himself. I agree with that. Their concern is that if Britain receives an EU exception on the free movement of labour, populists in other countries (such as Sweden) will seize on it, and then the whole principle will fall apart. If we had a more constructive approach to Europe the other countries might be more inclined to listen sympathetically when we say, as we should, "we've got a real problem here, and we need a break, has anybody got ideas which can help us slow the growth while supporting the founding EU principles?" (The Polish foreign minister offered one a few weeks ago on Andrew Marr - " make newcomers wait before getting benefits, just as we do in Poland")
I'm convinced that population growth is a real issue but it needs calm and reasoned debate with full access to robust figures.
I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
It seems we are third (if you strip out tiny island nations) in population density behind Bangladesh and S. Korea.
413? Blimey, we're all doomed.
Hong Kong has 6,650 people per square kilometre, ever been? Public transport, healthcare, all brilliant. It's a TOTAL non-point, sorry!
Yes, several times and to Macau. They are both hotrible overcrowded places. But they are also small so don't have to worry about long distance trains,road networks, etc. Are you now saying you think HK size apartments are the way to go? Personally I'd prefer more green and more wildlife to more humans. But that's a planet-wide preference.
I'm no better or worse than any person born on any place in this earth. I don't have a special right to my country's finances, education system, benefits or healthcare just because I was lucky enough to be born here. I wasn't chosen. I'm not special. I just won the lottery and happened to grow up in one of the richest nations on earth. Why would that give me the right to look down on people who try to come to this country to take advantage of all it has to offer? Would any one of us not do the same if we could offer ourselves and our families a better life?
I'll never understand this anti-immigration mindset, the UK has more than enough to go around and still offer everyone a lifestyle that's better than 99% of the rest of the world. It's selfish, it's British people thinking they are some kind of divine species that shouldn't have to share what it has, a significant part of which was gained from a history of taking from poorer countries.
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of the sentiments. But, it's the available space that concerns me - we don't have enough of it. I don't want this green and pleasant land to be concreted over to accommodate all-comers. If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
It seems we are third (if you strip out tiny island nations) in population density behind Bangladesh and S. Korea.
413? Blimey, we're all doomed.
Hong Kong has 6,650 people per square kilometre, ever been? Public transport, healthcare, all brilliant. It's a TOTAL non-point, sorry!
Yes, several times and to Macau. They are both hotrible overcrowded places. But they are also small so don't have to worry about long distance trains,road networks, etc. Are you now saying you think HK size apartments are the way to go? Personally I'd prefer more green and more wildlife to more humans. But that's a planet-wide preference.
I'm saying that if more human beings have access to professional and free healthcare, education and a better quality of life, and all I have to do is live in a smaller apartment and deal with some crowding, then how could I complain.
Your thought is why should you have to share? My question is why shouldn't you?
Chunes, you seem to be saying that you would invite the entire under-privileged population of the world to immigrate here (that would run to billions) and presumably stand on each others heads in order to share our privileged green and pleasant land. I think you will have a tough job selling that concept, however virtuous. Would you draw the line anywhere at all?
Chunes, you seem to be saying that you would invite the entire under-privileged population of the world to immigrate here (that would run to billions) and presumably stand on each others heads in order to share our privileged green and pleasant land. I think you will have a tough job selling that concept, however virtuous. Would you draw the line anywhere at all?
I'm just against this mindset that basically says - we were divinely chosen to be born in England and be born rich. And if somebody was born poor then that's their fault and they should stay in their poor countries so we can enjoy all the good stuff ourselves. I would draw the line at looking down at people because they were born less fortunate than us.
I'm not persuaded that concern about the "human capacity" of the country where you live = looking down at people less fortunate. There are plenty of people already living here who come into that category. There are practical things that anyone can do to help through charities or otherwise. Nobody is stopping anyone from sharing their home with a family of under-privileged( let's say Roma people for example), if they feel strongly enough about their own luck of birth, and wish to be sharing it unilaterally, but I feel that saying "roll-up, roll-up", on behalf of the whole country is not practical.
I don't mean to criticise what sounds like an exceptionally selfless attitude on your part.
The UK is approaching a state of overpopulation. That is, we dont have enough resources to sustain the population at its current standard of living. Malthus with his predictions from 1800 may yet be proved right, even with the marvels of modern technology.
One slightly out of dateone-sided viewpoint is covered here from the group 'population Matters'
UK “in denial” about overpopulation The UK has a serious “hidden” overpopulation problem but most politicians and environmental groups are in denial about it, the Optimum Population Trust says in a briefing.
Despite calls to increase the birth rate and increase immigration to raise the number of workers, the UK is already “freeloading” on poorer countries by consuming three times its share of the world’s resources. Further increases in Britain’s population will only make that worse.
The UK requires 3.6 “UKs” to feed and supply itself – the “other” 2.6 UKs (the extra land required for our lifestyles) are abroad. Not only is this a dangerous strategy in a world of depleting resources; it is exploiting Britain’s privileged position on the world economy, to the detriment of poorer countries.
Most African countries have population policies – yet the UK, which is more crowded and does far more per capita global environmental damage than Africa, does not.
Overcrowding and high densities in the UK may be linked to deteriorating mental health.
China, where the controversial one-child policy has at least prevented 400 million children being born, represents a “nightmare vision of the future” in which coercive policies become the only alternative to conflict and die-off.
Britons will need to cut their carbon emissions by around 90 per cent over the long term if the burden of CO2 reductions is to be shared equally among the planet’s population. Technology and lifestyle changes – even a major shift to renewable energy, for example – will “simply be incapable of delivering cuts of this magnitude or anything near it” and a lower population must be part of the solution.*** Recent examples have shown how this could be achieved by better education and family planning programmes.
David Nicholson-Lord, OPT research associate, said: “As the briefing clearly demonstrates, we owe it to the rest of the planet to stabilise our own population. Producing lots of extra Brits, whether through higher birth rates or immigration, is a selfish strategy both economically and environmentally. Not only will it increase overcrowding and congestion and put huge extra strain on resources and habitats in the UK; because British consumers have such a heavy global footprint, it will intensify our impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.
(The UK’s population is currently over 60 million and is projected to rise to 70.7 million by 2074. Immigration currently accounts for over 80 per cent of projected UK population growth (Office of National Statistics). )
Say we did (assuming we could) shut the border to immigrants, what would happen? We have an aging population, as harsh as it seems the older a person gets the more of a burden they are on the economy (pensions, health bills, subsidies etc.). If the birth rates of native Britons stayed the same it would make the austerity measures brought in after the last recession seem like each of us had won the lottery. Obviously millions of people coming in isn't the best long term solution it is definitely helping the economy (as was shown in that recent report).
I don't think anyone is stubborn enough to say that immigration doesn't bring any problems with it (as has been mentioned lack of housing) but what I think people who are completely anti-immigration need to realise is that it does bring benefits as well.
I guess my point is that if we did leave the EU (ignoring all the problems that could potentially bring) and put in extremely strict entry requirements, what do people suggest we do about the problems that would arise with that? Do we think enough people already in the country will be willing to work the minimum wage jobs? What would happen to the net positive contributions that immigration brings with it? I keep hearing about "shutting the door" but with little talk about what we would do after.
I've not heard anyone, say shut the border. Just reduce immigration to an acceptable level, that we can cope with. Everyone recognises that we need immigration. It just needs to be controlled and limited more to what we need.
Immigration is a complete red herring used to generate votes. A bigger labour market can only be better for the economy and it is a fact that immigrants tend to be net contributors in the tax/benefits games i.e. benefit tourism is completely nullified by the huge economic contributions hardworking migrants make.
I do not think so as a good percentage of immigrants earn at or below the £10k mark which is the point where people start paying tax. So they're not paying any tax and benefitting from benefits such as housing in lieu of their low earnings, their kids go to school and health services are free and all these adds up to a deficit.
I deal with some London local authorities. They cannot cope with immigration. It not just the extra numbers, it's the social problems. For example, how do schools teach kids where the majority do not have English as a first language and there are 5 or 6 different languages. The positive economic contribution statement is actually the lie.
I've not heard anyone, say shut the border. Just reduce immigration to an acceptable level, that we can cope with. Everyone recognises that we need immigration. It just needs to be controlled and limited more to what we need.
I've not heard anyone, say shut the border. Just reduce immigration to an acceptable level, that we can cope with. Everyone recognises that we need immigration. It just needs to be controlled and limited more to what we need.
How do we decide who can come in and who can't?
Why are you going round in circles ? We all know the answer is a points based system, like other countries have.
Comments
If you're fine with that on a macro scale what about the micro one? In the same way that you seem happy to have the UK filled to overflowing, with the infrastructure grinding to a halt and the roads jammed up completely, would you be more than happy to allow another 20-odd people to live in your house even if they are contributing more than their fair share to the upkeep? You, perhaps wouldn't be so content if you were seventeenth in the queue to use your own bathroom every morning. It's that concept but on a larger scale that concerns a lot of people.
Furthermore, both Labour and the LibDems are members of groups in the European Parliament that call for more money and powers to be transferred to the EU, and the LibDems actively campaign for the EU to gain greater sovereignty over the member nations.
The point about renegotiating the rebate is debatable.
I have just read the entire Labour manifesto for thr EU elections and there is nothing whatsoever requiring a surrender of sovereignty.
Being pro Europe doesn't mean rolling over - it means being at the centre fighting for this Country and a reformed EU. Currently we are very isolated with very little influence.
I'd hate to go to bed thinking you were a miserable so and so!
;-)
It seems we are third (if you strip out tiny island nations) in population density behind Bangladesh and S. Korea.
Hong Kong has 6,650 people per square kilometre, ever been? Public transport, healthcare, all brilliant. It's a TOTAL non-point, sorry!
In Kent however, we're seeing a lot of new large housing developments proposed and most of these are on green belt land. For instance, planning permission has been granted for a development of 5000 dwellings at Lodge Hill near the Medway Towns. This is a site of Special Scientific Interest and if built, land important for biodiversity will be lost forever.
Another green field site at Gibraltar Farm between Lordswood and Hempstead has a planning application for 450/500 dwellings. Traffic in this area at peak times is already at saturation point and you only have to get one incident on the main road network and everything comes to a complete halt.
Only this week, Maidstone came to a complete halt because of a suspected fire in the middle of the town and the traffic problems caused were experienced right back to the Medway towns.
There are many other large developments proposed throughout the county and the infrastructure cannot cope already, so these will only make things worse.
I don't want to see beautiful countryside lost forever because we have lost control of population growth.
Furthermore, both Labour and the LibDems are members of groups in the European Parliament that call for more money and powers to be transferred to the EU, and the LibDems actively campaign for the EU to gain greater sovereignty over the member nations. @Chunes
I'm pro Europe and broadly pro EU, although I think it needs reforms. (Show me a major institution that doesn't). However one of the things I have learnt from CL when this debate has been at its best (hats off to @Covered End and @Addickted for making me re-address deeply held convictions) is that we need to take this overcrowding debate seriously. Especially those of us who are pro-European, otherwise the anti-foreigners will take over the debate, and win.
When I left the UK for Prague soon after we returned to the Valley the population was 54m. I understand that it is now over 60m. The only other EU country I can find that has had a similar percentage increase in this period is Sweden. But that increase is from 8m to 9m in a much, much bigger land area. It is a huge problem and it must surely affect people's daily lives. It starts with the pressure on the NHS, and quickly moves into housing (of course prices go shooting up, there is excess demand) and transport. It distorts discussion on other matters. For example pro-privatisation nutters argue that privatising the railways is a success because they carry more passengers. Of course they do, you muppets, because the population - the market - has grown by 6m and all these people have to get around somehow.
However it is far less clear that this population growth has ben fuelled by EU membership. We urgently need reliable data on this in order to have a decent debate. If there really are so many more EU immigrant here than in, say, Germany, its not obvious to me that they all came here because of the fabulous weather or the smiling welcoming natives. Maybe it is because the benefits system (or the perception of it) is out of line with the rest of Europe.
I think this is why Cameron is not receiving support from other northern EU states who agree with him on many reform issues. They think he is using the EU as an excuse when there are several other causes of population growth too, and they think he can and should fix those causes himself. I agree with that. Their concern is that if Britain receives an EU exception on the free movement of labour, populists in other countries (such as Sweden) will seize on it, and then the whole principle will fall apart. If we had a more constructive approach to Europe the other countries might be more inclined to listen sympathetically when we say, as we should, "we've got a real problem here, and we need a break, has anybody got ideas which can help us slow the growth while supporting the founding EU principles?" (The Polish foreign minister offered one a few weeks ago on Andrew Marr - " make newcomers wait before getting benefits, just as we do in Poland")
I'm convinced that population growth is a real issue but it needs calm and reasoned debate with full access to robust figures.
Romanians are even allowed to return home, change their names and then return up to 5 times!!!!
Your thought is why should you have to share? My question is why shouldn't you?
The Wildlife Trusts and RSPB are currently running a campaign to preserve our declining wildlife as it is essential for our health and wellbeing.
action.wildlifetrusts.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1823&ea.campaign.id=32896
I don't mean to criticise what sounds like an exceptionally selfless attitude on your part.
That is, we dont have enough resources to sustain the population at its current standard of living.
Malthus with his predictions from 1800 may yet be proved right, even with the marvels of modern technology.
One slightly out of dateone-sided viewpoint is covered here from the group 'population Matters'
UK “in denial” about overpopulation
The UK has a serious “hidden” overpopulation problem but most politicians and environmental groups are in denial about it, the Optimum Population Trust says in a briefing.
Despite calls to increase the birth rate and increase immigration to raise the number of workers, the UK is already “freeloading” on poorer countries by consuming three times its share of the world’s resources. Further increases in Britain’s population will only make that worse.
The UK requires 3.6 “UKs” to feed and supply itself – the “other” 2.6 UKs (the extra land required for our lifestyles) are abroad. Not only is this a dangerous strategy in a world of depleting resources; it is exploiting Britain’s privileged position on the world economy, to the detriment of poorer countries.
Most African countries have population policies – yet the UK, which is more crowded and does far more per capita global environmental damage than Africa, does not.
Overcrowding and high densities in the UK may be linked to deteriorating mental health.
China, where the controversial one-child policy has at least prevented 400 million children being born, represents a “nightmare vision of the future” in which coercive policies become the only alternative to conflict and die-off.
Britons will need to cut their carbon emissions by around 90 per cent over the long term if the burden of CO2 reductions is to be shared equally among the planet’s population. Technology and lifestyle changes – even a major shift to renewable energy, for example – will “simply be incapable of delivering cuts of this magnitude or anything near it” and a lower population must be part of the solution.*** Recent examples have shown how this could be achieved by better education and family planning programmes.
David Nicholson-Lord, OPT research associate, said: “As the briefing clearly demonstrates, we owe it to the rest of the planet to stabilise our own population. Producing lots of extra Brits, whether through higher birth rates or immigration, is a selfish strategy both economically and environmentally. Not only will it increase overcrowding and congestion and put huge extra strain on resources and habitats in the UK; because British consumers have such a heavy global footprint, it will intensify our impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.
(The UK’s population is currently over 60 million and is projected to rise to 70.7 million by 2074. Immigration currently accounts for over 80 per cent of projected UK population growth (Office of National Statistics). )
I don't think anyone is stubborn enough to say that immigration doesn't bring any problems with it (as has been mentioned lack of housing) but what I think people who are completely anti-immigration need to realise is that it does bring benefits as well.
I guess my point is that if we did leave the EU (ignoring all the problems that could potentially bring) and put in extremely strict entry requirements, what do people suggest we do about the problems that would arise with that? Do we think enough people already in the country will be willing to work the minimum wage jobs? What would happen to the net positive contributions that immigration brings with it? I keep hearing about "shutting the door" but with little talk about what we would do after.
Everyone recognises that we need immigration. It just needs to be controlled and limited more to what we need.