EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Senex]

Germany is a slightly odd case but that is largely a result of its rather unusual recent history.

Not just as a result of recent history (depending on how you're defining "recent", of course).

 

[meridian2]

Watch amazed as HS2 starts the process of turning Birmingham and south Manchester into a commuter suburb for London.

You say that like it's a good thing. Of more social and financial merit would be the specialisation of British cities, Manchester as an arts, media and finance centre, Newcastle as silicon valley, and hi-tech manufacturing returning to their traditional locations. These are not pipe dreams and fantasies, they are fully within the power of government to put in place. If HS2/3/4 have to happen, let them be a way of revitalising the nation as a whole, not as a more effective brain drain. Central London is full to all except oligarchs, and much of greater London is financially inaccessible to anyone is public service. Further expanding the idea of London will continue the same strategy of social polarisation. Perhaps that would be your preferred option?

 

[meridian2]

I wouldn't call being #37 and 57 on the list of net migration as being flooded with migrants. Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Portugal all have higher net migration rates than the UK and France.

Are you talking absolute numbers or percentage of existing population? Luxembourg has higher immigration figures than Britain? I'd like to see that data.

 

[najaB]

Both infrastructure and the space to support it. We are a small island supporting 65-70m people. Britain as Hong Kong, a Blade Runner city rather than a green and pleasant land is a choice within our control.

The UK is the 50th most densely populated country in the world, with 246 people per square kilometre. We could easily support another 10M people without it having a massive impact - it would move us up to number 42 on the list. We are a long way away from being 'full'.

(Hong Kong is over 6,000 per sq km by the way).

 

[najaB]

Are you talking absolute numbers or percentage of existing population? Luxembourg has higher immigration figures than Britain? I'd like to see that data.

Per head of existing population.

Hopefully this link will work: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=27&l=en

 

[Barn]

The UK is the 50th most densely populated country in the world, with 246 people per square kilometre. We could easily support another 10M people without it having a massive impact - it would move us up to number 42 on the list. We are a long way away from being 'full'.

(Hong Kong is over 6,000 per sq km by the way).

Slightly dodgy use of statistics there. Many of the territories higher in the list are city states or small islands.

Of comparable European countries we are third behind the Netherlands and Belgium, and even those might not really be said to be comparable because of their small size. We are more than twice as dense as France

 

[najaB]

Slightly dodgy use of statistics there. Many of the territories higher in the list are city states or small islands.

The original comparison was to Hong Kong. Thus micro-states were on the table from the start.

If you limit the scope to 'large European countries' then an additional 10M people would move us from where we are to where we are.

 

[meridian2]

Per head of existing population.

Hopefully this link will work: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=27&l=en

I thought as much. That would make the Isle of Man a metropolis. It would be interesting to know the immigration figures per square mile. The example of Hong Kong was a warning, not an aspiration.

 

[meridian2]

EU immigration policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvugebaT6Q

 

[Barn]

If you limit the scope to 'large European countries' then an additional 10M people would move us from where we are to where we are.

Only in terms of ranking, because of the high density of the Benelux countries.

Look at the Netherlands on Google Maps (especially the intensity of its highway network). Look at it on a night satellite view showing the street lights. Closing the density gap even half-way with that country would make a huge difference to the UK.

 

[najaB]

I thought as much. That would make the Isle of Man a metropolis. It would be interesting to know the immigration figures per square mile. The example of Hong Kong was a warning, not an aspiration.

Interesting but I don't see what it shows. Anyway, a bit of Excel work shows that, based on 2012 figures (the most recent World Bank data set) the UK and Germany are virtually tied on migrants per sq km:
United Kingdom (#22) = 3.72
Germany (#23) = 3.59

You mentioned France earlier in the thread. They are #41 at 0.61 so *much* lower than the UK. They are closer to the EU average (0.55) and the high income country average (0.44).

So the UK and Germany seem to be the exceptions to the rule.

 

[Howardh]

According to Simon Calder in the Independent - yes, he who said the following was "ridiculous" has now explains that all US visitors to the EU will now require full visas, until such point that the US allows ALL EU citizens visa-free access to the US (as Canada will by the end of the year) and that in future all prospective visitors to the EU (that will mean us, of course) will require a minimum of an e-Visa, fingerprinting, photo taken and also anyone's criminal records disclosed etc.

And the EU are worries that it might put off tourism? If you arrive at your EU airport, how long will it take to photograph, fingerprint and check the forms of everyone in the queue? Or will it all be done beforehand?

I though to have your fingerprints taken and put on a data base, you had to be arrested/suspected of a crime? So much for freedom.

Of course, the easy way to avoid all that and to keep seamless travel to the EU is to, ahem, STAY in the EU.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ok, let's extrapolate Europe of the EU into a global economy, a completely border free world where people can choose to live where they will. Which would be the most popular places? Leaving out regions that are too hot or cold for a comfortable existence, I'd suggest countries that allow the possibility of making the most money will win out.

1. Did you miss the bit of my post where I said:

That's not to say that there should be completely open borders everywhere - you've correctly pointed out some of reasons why - if open borders leads to mass migration - it can cause other problems - so I would say there does need to be a balance struck between the needs of individuals and the needs of the wider communities.

2. Even if your comments were aimed at the EU open borders policy rather than against my remarks, they are a bit a red herring since no one to my knowledge is suggesting we have completely open borders across the entire world. You appear to be attacking a straw man. (Personally I think that open borders would - from the point of view of giving people freedom - be a great ideal, but it's sadly not practical in today's world).

3. I notice you didn't respond at all to my point about the problems immigration control tends to cause to people's lives:

However, I think you're missing the other - very important - rationale for trying to keep immigration controls as light as practical: That people should, in principle, be free to determine their own lives, including where they wish to live. Remember, ultimately, all immigration controls amount to Governments basically telling people where they are and where they aren't allowed to live. Often that includes by implication - preventing people from seeing their families, their friends, even their husbands or wives (And yes, that really does happen *a lot* in the UK today). Too many people blindly call for harsher immigration controls, forgetting (or ignoring) the devastating effect that immigration controls can have on the lives of so many people.

Are you not bothered about this? Does splitting up families, people being told they are not allowed to see their loved ones, etc., not concern you at all?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The UK is the 50th most densely populated country in the world, with 246 people per square kilometre. We could easily support another 10M people without it having a massive impact - it would move us up to number 42 on the list. We are a long way away from being 'full'.

I take it that figure per square kilometre includes the low population areas of central Wales and of the inner mountainous terrain of and the rural coastal areas of the north of Scotland.

Where will the schools, health centres and hospitals, housing, etc, appear from to meet such an extra 10M people and who will foot the bill for these?

Do you envisage new communities in Sugar Loaf in Wales and Cape Wrath in Scotland?

 

[Howardh]

I take it that figure per square kilometre includes the low population areas of central Wales and of the inner mountainous terrain of and the rural coastal areas of the north of Scotland.

Where will the schools, health centres and hospitals, housing, etc, appear from to meet such an extra 10M people and who will foot the bill for these?

Do you envisage new communities in Sugar Loaf in Wales and Cape Wrath in Scotland?

Regardless of Brexit, controls etc, in the next few years (medium term) we will need probably 5m extra people to fund our pensions as more and more grow older, because the state pension isn't based on an individual's savings, but on the amount the government takes in at any one time.

So it's pointless arguing "where will we put them, who will pay...etc etc" as it HAS to be done, or our pensions will reduce or even be eliminated in favour of private ones.

Luckily being an island we have the advantage of being able to make more space by building out into the sea.

Here's an interesting read http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/ (Various tables and explanations into population rise)

 

[najaB]

Do you envisage new communities in Sugar Loaf in Wales and Cape Wrath in Scotland?

I imagine that we'll probably have another five to ten new towns/cities of up to 100,000 population level in the next twenty to thirty years. They don't need to be as remote as Cape Wrath. In the Scottish Central Belt, as an example, you could easily support a new town of 50,000 people near Kinross in concert with the Glenfarg rail route and M9 providing quick and easy connections to Edinburgh and on to England on HS2 phase 3.

 

[HSTEd]

You say that like it's a good thing. Of more social and financial merit would be the specialisation of British cities, Manchester as an arts, media and finance centre, Newcastle as silicon valley, and hi-tech manufacturing returning to their traditional locations.

And how do you actually plan to implement these?

Financiers and media types will not move out of London except at gun point.
Just look how hard it was to convince anyone who worked for the BBC to move out to Media City, they had to pay enormous bungs to get them to move, and many still commute from London.

These are not pipe dreams and fantasies, they are fully within the power of government to put in place. If HS2/3/4 have to happen, let them be a way of revitalising the nation as a whole, not as a more effective brain drain.

London is the nation.
I know people living in less productive areas don't want to accept it, but London is one of the most productive economic units in the history of our entire civilisation.
Doing anything that interferes with its continued growth puts at risk the budget that is going to be required for any attempt to improve economic results in the rest of the country.

Central London is full to all except oligarchs, and much of greater London is financially inaccessible to anyone is public service. Further expanding the idea of London will continue the same strategy of social polarisation. Perhaps that would be your preferred option?

Social polarisation from expanding the idea of London is likely to be less fractious than the social polarisation from the forced relocation of vast numbers of public servants and those in supporting trades from the places they have made their lives to the comparatively poor north.

 

[HSTEd]

I take it that figure per square kilometre includes the low population areas of central Wales and of the inner mountainous terrain of and the rural coastal areas of the north of Scotland.

Hong Kong demonstrates that mountainous terrain is no obstacle to constructing a city.
And why couldn't we build a city of several million on the northern Scottish coast? Cities have been built in more forbidding locations.
Myself I thought perhaps a city of several million built on the island of Jura - the Manhattan of Europe.

Where will the schools, health centres and hospitals, housing, etc, appear from to meet such an extra 10M people and who will foot the bill for these?

The state will foot the bill, using the future tax income from those ten million extra people.
It is also much easier to build infrastructure before or during the construction of a city than after it.
As Crossrail demonstrates, cut and cover tunneling might be impractical in central London but not through an empty field.

Do you envisage new communities in Sugar Loaf in Wales and Cape Wrath in Scotland?

Why not?
As I said, cities have been built in more hostile locations (Cape Wrath's climate actually isn't that bad as it is highly maritime)

EDIT:
Sorry about the double post - got caught out by the apparent abolition of the double posting system

 

[furnessvale]

Of course, the easy way to avoid all that and to keep seamless travel to the EU is to, ahem, STAY in the EU.

Whether the UK is in or out of the EU, its citizens are EXACTLY the same people, and pose the same risks.

If the EU vindictively decides to impose unnecessary restrictions on movement between our countries it is, ahem, simply another demonstration of why we should be out of this corrupt self serving, protectionist organisation.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Whether the UK is in or out of the EU, its citizens are EXACTLY the same people, and pose the same risks.

If the EU vindictively decides to impose unnecessary restrictions on movement between our countries it is, ahem, simply another demonstration of why we should be out of this corrupt self serving, protectionist organisation.

Isn't part of the point of Brexit to "impose unnecessary restrictions on movement between our countries"?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regardless of Brexit, controls etc, in the next few years (medium term) we will need probably 5m extra people to fund our pensions as more and more grow older, because the state pension isn't based on an individual's savings, but on the amount the government takes in at any one time.

Umm... umm... I'm generally on the pro-EU, pro-migration side of the debate, but even I can see that continually importing people to support the fact that people live longer is not sustainable in the long term. What do you do when all the people you've imported grow old and need care/someone to pay for their pensions? Import more people to care for them? Ultimately as people live longer, we're going to have to face difficult choices about either the retirement age or the level of taxation needed to support old people, or the need for some kind of separate social/pensions insurance. Perhaps some immigration can help in the short term (because of issues around the fact that Governments in the past made commitments to existing pensioners or people approaching retirement, which people would expect to be honoured), but it can't be a long term solution.

Also, I think your argument makes the same mistake that so many people on the anti-immigration side make: Of treating immigrants not as human beings, but as commodities to be imported only as long as they are useful to 'us'. Hopefully the moral issues around that kind of argument are obvious!

 

[najaB]

If the EU vindictively decides to impose...

The UK won't be a member, so will have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Nothing vindictive about it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Luckily being an island we have the advantage of being able to make more space by building out into the sea.

Surely not a return to the idea of crannogs that were built in the Neolithic period, but on an ever undreamt of massive scale or perhaps an idealistic massive reef construction around St Kilda...:roll:

What do you then do when winter storms of ferocious density roar through these settlements and neither planes, helicopters or vessels can make landings?

 

[Barn]

Isn't part of the point of Brexit to "impose unnecessary restrictions on movement between our countries"?

Remember to distinguish mere movement (which is about visa requirements, border fomalities, etc) from immigration (which creates a need for new homes, schools, hospitals, rail infrastructure, etc).

I'm not aware of anyone who actually wants to make it harder for people to come to the UK for a holiday, a conference or a meeting.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Regardless of Brexit, controls etc, in the next few years (medium term) we will need probably 5m extra people to fund our pensions as more and more grow older, because the state pension isn't based on an individual's savings, but on the amount the government takes in at any one time.

So it's pointless arguing "where will we put them, who will pay...etc etc" as it HAS to be done, or our pensions will reduce or even be eliminated in favour of private ones.

I note the word "HAS" above in your posting and obviously you have the economic wherewithal to lay your plans before the Government of the day, perhaps even seeing you address a Select Committee where you can hold steady against the strongest questioning. It is when the Treasury gets wind of your aspirations that then you will see that not all aspirations ever see the light of day.

Motto for the day
Do not ask for reality and realism, as a refusal often offends.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm not aware of anyone who actually wants to make it harder for people to come to the UK for a holiday, a conference or a meeting.

And yet 52% of people who voted, voted for something that will do that!
It isn't exactly that surprisingly, surely, that in voting to leave the EU, you are voting to make it more difficult to travel between the UK and other EU countries (as one of the benefits of the EU is that it reduces that bureaucracy for travelling between member countries).

 

[EM2]

.Central London is full to all except oligarchs, and much of greater London is financially inaccessible to anyone is public service.

I can't think of anyone I know that works in public service in London that lives outside Zone 6, and that includes nurses, midwives, paramedics, police officers, teachers and civil servants

 

[HSTEd]

Surely not a return to the idea of crannogs that were built in the Neolithic period, but on an ever undreamt of massive scale or perhaps an idealistic massive reef construction around St Kilda...:roll:

What do you then do when winter storms of ferocious density roar through these settlements and neither planes, helicopters or vessels can make landings?

Surely if you are going to build polders on a previously unimagined scale, you would spend the money to have an immersed tube tunnel connecting them to the mainland?

 

[EM2]

What do you then do when winter storms of ferocious density roar through these settlements and neither planes, helicopters or vessels can make landings?

There are plenty of cities in places much more inhospitable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The state will foot the bill, using the future tax income from those ten million extra people.

Where are all these ten million new jobs suddenly appearing from, who will be offering such vast scales of employment, what types of jobs will there be?

More importantly, why are these ten million new jobs not already here now? Are we waiting for the Genie of the Lamp or the Tooth Fairy or Merlin the Wizard to create them overnight...:roll: