BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt. I suspect there is a large transient migrant population, but of course would need to look into figures. Then of course there are many, many years for circumstances to change in other countries, a bit of a cyclical thing perhaps? Who knows.0 -
I'm sure that they don't all want to do that but the population projections above presumably factor that in. The key is as ever, net migration.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt.
Let's put it another way - at what point would you say that the UK population is getting too high? 100m? 150m? There has to be a limit."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I'm sure that they don't all want to do that but the population projections above presumably factor that in. The key is as ever, net migration.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt.
Let's put it another way - at what point would you say that the UK population is getting too high? 100m? 150m? There has to be a limit.
Well, the principle projection is 20m more over the next 70 years. As I said, many things could change in that time. It really doesn't worry me. What worries me more is removing those key workers here and taking back the retired Costa crowd. Not only will that be loads more welfare but they'll have to put extra guards on bullion trains again.0 -
Thought GB, the previous unelected PM, had sold off all the bullion?Joelsim wrote:they'll have to put extra guards on bullion trains again.
Anyway, I wait in keen expectation of our dear leader TM telling our lump of Leave voting, workshy, lard ar5e benefit junkie native born Brits that the other side of 'no immigrants' coin is that they themselves have to take on the low wage, hard work jobs in our care sector, agriculture, distribution sheds etc etc. 'Cos without those pesky E Europeans....0 -
Not sure where you get the idea of removing key workers. Look at the news effectively those already here can stay and a sensible points based system can allow in those that we need. It is seems to work in other countries such as Australia, NZ, Canada for example and applies to non EU workers in the UK already. I've hired a few myself without any real issues.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I'm sure that they don't all want to do that but the population projections above presumably factor that in. The key is as ever, net migration.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt.
Let's put it another way - at what point would you say that the UK population is getting too high? 100m? 150m? There has to be a limit.
Well, the principle projection is 20m more over the next 70 years. As I said, many things could change in that time. It really doesn't worry me. What worries me more is removing those key workers here and taking back the retired Costa crowd. Not only will that be loads more welfare but they'll have to put extra guards on bullion trains again.
Just levelling the playing field really."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well you should be worried.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I'm sure that they don't all want to do that but the population projections above presumably factor that in. The key is as ever, net migration.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt.
Let's put it another way - at what point would you say that the UK population is getting too high? 100m? 150m? There has to be a limit.
Well, the principle projection is 20m more over the next 70 years. As I said, many things could change in that time. It really doesn't worry me. What worries me more is removing those key workers here and taking back the retired Costa crowd. Not only will that be loads more welfare but they'll have to put extra guards on bullion trains again.
That is a massive addition to our population and all that goes with it. Put it into perspective, that is 40 more Manchesters even if the mid projection is right. Or 80 Manchesters if one of the higher projections comes true - that's one major city's worth of population every year for decades to come...
And you're OK with that, but you don't really know which way things might go as you admit above. I don't want that or the likely detrimental impact on quality of life for us and our kids/ grandchildren. Surely you can understand why there are these concerns.
Given that most leave voters want immigration controls and roughly half of all remain voters want immigration controls, that puts you firmly in the minority."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And just for completeness JS, what in your view is the level of population that you regard as too high?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
I will take a stab at answering the immigration/population questions.
With our aging population we need more working age taxpayers. Migrants are great as we don't have to pay £5k a year to educate them and as they tend to leave it saves on retirement costs.
That said we should be stricter on criminals and could make benefits dependent on paying in. Personally I think as we "fill up" there will be a natural brake on people wanting to come here.
Anyway I think you are all underestimating the size of the task in reducing net immigration to sub 100,000 per annum
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rt/may2016
Highlights of this report;
330,0000 net immigration
Roughly half EU
Roughly half have a job
we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help0 -
Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt. I suspect there is a large transient migrant population, but of course would need to look into figures. Then of course there are many, many years for circumstances to change in other countries, a bit of a cyclical thing perhaps? Who knows.
Even if they don't retire here they will still be entitled to UK pensions. My parents returned to Ireland when they retired and receive their UK pensions. My mum also gets a US pension as she worked there for a few years between leaving Ireland and settling long term in the UK.
Saying we can get more people in to fund the pensions and care funding gap is just creating a bigger problem for the future. It is in fact the roots of the problem we have now.
You could also argue that the public sector pensions gap can be solved by employing more people and using the extra contributions from them to fund the current gap!0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
The draw of earning money in the UK and sending it home to Eastern Europe is a lot lower, given the fall of the pound.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
You cannot avoid the numbers point despite the existence of other issues. I am simply focusing on the key long term issue as I see it.Joelsim wrote:There's far more to it than that. You know that as well as I do.
I notice that you're not disagreeing with that part.
Well for a start it all depends on whether the migrants all want to retire here, which I somehow doubt. I suspect there is a large transient migrant population, but of course would need to look into figures. Then of course there are many, many years for circumstances to change in other countries, a bit of a cyclical thing perhaps? Who knows.
Even if they don't retire here they will still be entitled to UK pensions. My parents returned to Ireland when they retired and receive their UK pensions. My mum also gets a US pension as she worked there for a few years between leaving Ireland and settling long term in the UK.
Saying we can get more people in to fund the pensions and care funding gap is just creating a bigger problem for the future. It is in fact the roots of the problem we have now.
You could also argue that the public sector pensions gap can be solved by employing more people and using the extra contributions from them to fund the current gap!
Assuming your parents came here at working age then we saved a fortune on educating them. Despite paying their pensions we are also saving a potential fortune in health care costs.
The public sector pension deficit is a ticking bomb that deserves its own thread but it will be worsened by slowing the economy and restricting immigration.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
The draw of earning money in the UK and sending it home to Eastern Europe is a lot lower, given the fall of the pound.
Maybe we could have a Saturday night gameshow where members of the public get to select who comes and who should go.
Another forumite mentioned relatives of migrants. That just looks like a cost and encouraging them to stay.
100,000 won't even allow enough single people in to take necessary jobs so let's get down and dirty and name those we are going to block.
180,000 students - nobody likes a student but they are paying high fees and funding our education system. They should be single, have no dependants and could be barred from benefits. But then we have even less spots for necessary workers.
I like the idea of letting anybody (and up to 6 relatives) in who has $1m to invest in a business. Maybe for each 10 people they employ they could be allowed another relative.
We need to encourage people to leave - assuming we do not sink to the level of forcible repatriation (criminals aside) then we could incentivise/facilitate people (preferably immigrants) to emigrate.0 -
Whatever the rules we make in the current climate , they will be bad rules as they are founded on the idea that an immigrant working in this country is worth less than a UK born citizen working here. I can't see anything in the above "solutions" that doesn't come across as a at least a little xenophobic. It's a classic example of a moral panic.
Anyone remember the moral panic in the Thatcher era? Basically, single mothers were the big social evil of the day, putting a strain on the economy. The response was to create the Child Support Agency, which was a disaster. But there were discussions around forced or encouraged sterilisation, or how many children should women be "allowed to have" before state support was withdrawn. There were no internet forums back then, so we don't have many records of how extreme these discussions got when out of the public eye, but I can remember some quite shocking discussions with students in social sciences.0 -
orraloon wrote:
Thought GB, the previous unelected PM, had sold off all the bullion?Joelsim wrote:they'll have to put extra guards on bullion trains again.
Anyway, I wait in keen expectation of our dear leader TM telling our lump of Leave voting, workshy, lard ar5e benefit junkie native born Brits that the other side of 'no immigrants' coin is that they themselves have to take on the low wage, hard work jobs in our care sector, agriculture, distribution sheds etc etc. 'Cos without those pesky E Europeans....
I think he sold about half of it. He did wait until it hit bottom before selling though.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Whatever the rules we make in the current climate , they will be bad rules as they are founded on the idea that an immigrant working in this country is worth less than a UK born citizen working here. I can't see anything in the above "solutions" that doesn't come across as a at least a little xenophobic. It's a classic example of a moral panic.
Anyone remember the moral panic in the Thatcher era? Basically, single mothers were the big social evil of the day, putting a strain on the economy. The response was to create the Child Support Agency, which was a disaster. But there were discussions around forced or encouraged sterilisation, or how many children should women be "allowed to have" before state support was withdrawn. There were no internet forums back then, so we don't have many records of how extreme these discussions got when out of the public eye, but I can remember some quite shocking discussions with students in social sciences.
Crikey - have you become a remorseful Outer?
It is said that in Govt that everybody is in favour of cuts until you start talking specifics. I suspect the same will be true for net immigration. I suspect their best hope/policy will be to fark the economy.
Having read about the near impossibility of reaching a fisheries agreement in 2 years I am starting to suspect that we will end up with a strange agreement that leaves all existing agreements in place but with us having no representation in Brussels. In other words we could get soft Brexit by accident.0 -
I recognise the point about helping to fund the care for an ageing population and don't dispute the economic benefits from migrants coming here.Surrey Commuter wrote:I will take a stab at answering the immigration/population questions.
With our aging population we need more working age taxpayers. Migrants are great as we don't have to pay £5k a year to educate them and as they tend to leave it saves on retirement costs.
That said we should be stricter on criminals and could make benefits dependent on paying in. Personally I think as we "fill up" there will be a natural brake on people wanting to come here.
Anyway I think you are all underestimating the size of the task in reducing net immigration to sub 100,000 per annum
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rt/may2016
Highlights of this report;
330,0000 net immigration
Roughly half EU
Roughly half have a job
we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
But as mentioned above, it all becomes a massive Ponzi scheme when an expanded population then ages and needs yet larger numbers of immigrants to fund their care. It has to stop at some point.
The idea that we simply let the place become less attractive as we 'fill up' is not a nice one as that implies sufficient issues with overcrowding, transport, even higher house prices, strain on services etc. Much better for us to deal with it before it gets to that.
As has been said, probably needs a separate thread to debate with the underlying issues."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The fisheries bit is one of the many areas that bemuse me. Fishermen wanted out of the EU because of quotas, but without quotas there would be no fish left in the sea worth catching, and without international agreements, the only way to decide the matter is with warships, ultimately. Cod wars, anyone? Ha - can you imagine such a farce? Oh, hang on, it wasn't a farce, it was real. It's another example of the EU being hated for what it did (impose quotas), but forgetting what it did (make fishing sustainable, and discourage countries using their warships to defend fishing territories).Surrey Commuter wrote:Having read about the near impossibility of reaching a fisheries agreement in 2 years I am starting to suspect that we will end up with a strange agreement that leaves all existing agreements in place but with us having no representation in Brussels. In other words we could get soft Brexit by accident.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
The fisheries bit is one of the many areas that bemuse me. Fishermen wanted out of the EU because of quotas, but without quotas there would be no fish left in the sea worth catching, and without international agreements, the only way to decide the matter is with warships, ultimately. Cod wars, anyone? Ha - can you imagine such a farce? Oh, hang on, it wasn't a farce, it was real. It's another example of the EU being hated for what it did (impose quotas), but forgetting what it did (make fishing sustainable, and discourage countries using their warships to defend fishing territories).Surrey Commuter wrote:Having read about the near impossibility of reaching a fisheries agreement in 2 years I am starting to suspect that we will end up with a strange agreement that leaves all existing agreements in place but with us having no representation in Brussels. In other words we could get soft Brexit by accident.
Quite.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
The fisheries bit is one of the many areas that bemuse me. Fishermen wanted out of the EU because of quotas, but without quotas there would be no fish left in the sea worth catching, and without international agreements, the only way to decide the matter is with warships, ultimately. Cod wars, anyone? Ha - can you imagine such a farce? Oh, hang on, it wasn't a farce, it was real. It's another example of the EU being hated for what it did (impose quotas), but forgetting what it did (make fishing sustainable, and discourage countries using their warships to defend fishing territories).Surrey Commuter wrote:Having read about the near impossibility of reaching a fisheries agreement in 2 years I am starting to suspect that we will end up with a strange agreement that leaves all existing agreements in place but with us having no representation in Brussels. In other words we could get soft Brexit by accident.
I believe there is a Spanish boat that owns 25% of our total fishing quota. Do we honour that or start again?0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I recognise the point about helping to fund the care for an ageing population and don't dispute the economic benefits from migrants coming here.Surrey Commuter wrote:I will take a stab at answering the immigration/population questions.
With our aging population we need more working age taxpayers. Migrants are great as we don't have to pay £5k a year to educate them and as they tend to leave it saves on retirement costs.
That said we should be stricter on criminals and could make benefits dependent on paying in. Personally I think as we "fill up" there will be a natural brake on people wanting to come here.
Anyway I think you are all underestimating the size of the task in reducing net immigration to sub 100,000 per annum
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rt/may2016
Highlights of this report;
330,0000 net immigration
Roughly half EU
Roughly half have a job
we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
But as mentioned above, it all becomes a massive Ponzi scheme when an expanded population then ages and needs yet larger numbers of immigrants to fund their care. It has to stop at some point.
The idea that we simply let the place become less attractive as we 'fill up' is not a nice one as that implies sufficient issues with overcrowding, transport, even higher house prices, strain on services etc. Much better for us to deal with it before it gets to that.
As has been said, probably needs a separate thread to debate with the underlying issues.
Not a ponzi scheme as they tend to leave - and that is specific to the public sector.
But what specific measures would you suggest?0 -
Absolutely no idea, but it illustrates how intractable the problems will be. Brexit feels like some uppity teenager wanting everything now, thinking that running away from home will solve all the problems, then realising that the big bad world is a big bad world, and actually that the crap bits about living at home are probably mostly there for a good reason, and even if they aren't, are worth putting up with.Surrey Commuter wrote:I believe there is a Spanish boat that owns 25% of our total fishing quota. Do we honour that or start again?
Someone on Facebook called me 'defeatist' for questioning whether there would be any positive outcomes of Brexit; I asked whether it wasn't even more defeatist to give up on an admittedly flawed organisation that, despite its problems, has favoured diplomacy for the resolution of Europe's conflicts, rather than the rather more disruptive methods employed twice in the 20th century. And that's quite apart from the question of whether the EU has been, overall, good for the prosperity of Europe, as an entity.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I recognise the point about helping to fund the care for an ageing population and don't dispute the economic benefits from migrants coming here.Surrey Commuter wrote:I will take a stab at answering the immigration/population questions.
With our aging population we need more working age taxpayers. Migrants are great as we don't have to pay £5k a year to educate them and as they tend to leave it saves on retirement costs.
That said we should be stricter on criminals and could make benefits dependent on paying in. Personally I think as we "fill up" there will be a natural brake on people wanting to come here.
Anyway I think you are all underestimating the size of the task in reducing net immigration to sub 100,000 per annum
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rt/may2016
Highlights of this report;
330,0000 net immigration
Roughly half EU
Roughly half have a job
we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
But as mentioned above, it all becomes a massive Ponzi scheme when an expanded population then ages and needs yet larger numbers of immigrants to fund their care. It has to stop at some point.
The idea that we simply let the place become less attractive as we 'fill up' is not a nice one as that implies sufficient issues with overcrowding, transport, even higher house prices, strain on services etc. Much better for us to deal with it before it gets to that.
As has been said, probably needs a separate thread to debate with the underlying issues.
Not a ponzi scheme as they tend to leave - and that is specific to the public sector.
But what specific measures would you suggest?
It's become apparent that many leave voters would like to send anyone with even a hint of dark skin home.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Absolutely no idea, but it illustrates how intractable the problems will be. Brexit feels like some uppity teenager wanting everything now, thinking that running away from home will solve all the problems, then realising that the big bad world is a big bad world, and actually that the crap bits about living at home are probably mostly there for a good reason, and even if they aren't, are worth putting up with.Surrey Commuter wrote:I believe there is a Spanish boat that owns 25% of our total fishing quota. Do we honour that or start again?
Someone on Facebook called me 'defeatist' for questioning whether there would be any positive outcomes of Brexit; I asked whether it wasn't even more defeatist to give up on an admittedly flawed organisation that, despite its problems, has favoured diplomacy for the resolution of Europe's conflicts, rather than the rather more disruptive methods employed twice in the 20th century. And that's quite apart from the question of whether the EU has been, overall, good for the prosperity of Europe, as an entity.
Defeatist. Remoaner. Get over it.
(Usually followed by an ignorant untruth of epic proportions like saving the taxpayer money).0 -
Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I recognise the point about helping to fund the care for an ageing population and don't dispute the economic benefits from migrants coming here.Surrey Commuter wrote:I will take a stab at answering the immigration/population questions.
With our aging population we need more working age taxpayers. Migrants are great as we don't have to pay £5k a year to educate them and as they tend to leave it saves on retirement costs.
That said we should be stricter on criminals and could make benefits dependent on paying in. Personally I think as we "fill up" there will be a natural brake on people wanting to come here.
Anyway I think you are all underestimating the size of the task in reducing net immigration to sub 100,000 per annum
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rt/may2016
Highlights of this report;
330,0000 net immigration
Roughly half EU
Roughly half have a job
we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
But as mentioned above, it all becomes a massive Ponzi scheme when an expanded population then ages and needs yet larger numbers of immigrants to fund their care. It has to stop at some point.
The idea that we simply let the place become less attractive as we 'fill up' is not a nice one as that implies sufficient issues with overcrowding, transport, even higher house prices, strain on services etc. Much better for us to deal with it before it gets to that.
As has been said, probably needs a separate thread to debate with the underlying issues.
Not a ponzi scheme as they tend to leave - and that is specific to the public sector.
But what specific measures would you suggest?
It's become apparent that many leave voters would like to send anyone with even a hint of dark skin home.
That is a harsh accusation against Steveo. I am not trying to lay traps. If we were having a debate about govt finances people would have an opinion on what spending to cut and what taxes to raise.
With immigration nobody will say who they want to exclude and who they want to encourage to leave.
I would refuse entry to anybody who had served a prison term and deport the same. I would make benefits contributory for everybody. I would also offer a £1k to whinging second generation immigrants who gave up their passport and left. I suspect these will only scratch the surface and we will need to rely on long term economic decline.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I recognise the point about helping to fund the care for an ageing population and don't dispute the economic benefits from migrants coming here.Surrey Commuter wrote:I will take a stab at answering the immigration/population questions.
With our aging population we need more working age taxpayers. Migrants are great as we don't have to pay £5k a year to educate them and as they tend to leave it saves on retirement costs.
That said we should be stricter on criminals and could make benefits dependent on paying in. Personally I think as we "fill up" there will be a natural brake on people wanting to come here.
Anyway I think you are all underestimating the size of the task in reducing net immigration to sub 100,000 per annum
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... rt/may2016
Highlights of this report;
330,0000 net immigration
Roughly half EU
Roughly half have a job
we would have to refuse entry to people with job offers. Our only hope would be to encourage people to emigrate - which a long-term economic downturn might help
But as mentioned above, it all becomes a massive Ponzi scheme when an expanded population then ages and needs yet larger numbers of immigrants to fund their care. It has to stop at some point.
The idea that we simply let the place become less attractive as we 'fill up' is not a nice one as that implies sufficient issues with overcrowding, transport, even higher house prices, strain on services etc. Much better for us to deal with it before it gets to that.
As has been said, probably needs a separate thread to debate with the underlying issues.
Not a ponzi scheme as they tend to leave - and that is specific to the public sector.
But what specific measures would you suggest?
It's become apparent that many leave voters would like to send anyone with even a hint of dark skin home.
That is a harsh accusation against Steveo. I am not trying to lay traps. If we were having a debate about govt finances people would have an opinion on what spending to cut and what taxes to raise.
With immigration nobody will say who they want to exclude and who they want to encourage to leave.
I would refuse entry to anybody who had served a prison term and deport the same. I would make benefits contributory for everybody. I would also offer a £1k to whinging second generation immigrants who gave up their passport and left. I suspect these will only scratch the surface and we will need to rely on long term economic decline.
It wasn't directed at Steve, just simply what I've seen happen on oh so many vox pops on the news.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
On the immigration point and the border controls argument for me it is about numbers and skills, not race or nationality.Joelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:TBH I don't agree with things like the Rudd statement. Being part of a mixed race family I am hardly one of the 'send them home' brigade.
But to suggest that the UK is on some slippery slope towards a situation similar to 1930s Germany is simply deluded.
No one is saying it's Hitler, but we also don't want Enoch Powell as The Telegraph suggested with an article by the scumbag Simon Heffer before taking the article down yesterday.
Do we really want our kids and grandkids to be living in an overpopulated country? Look at some of the population growth trends recently and the forecast range.
And do we really want to have to take in those who are a complete liability such as criminals, simply because they come from a certain country?
So how you decide what's overpopulated?
Those same immigrants 'overpopulating' the place have been the single reason the UK economy has grown, since productivity has stayed constant.
People were saying the UK was over populated 5 centuries ago, 4 centuries ago, 3 centuries ago, 2 centuries ago, and 1 century ago. Why is it different now?
It's particularly relevant given the boomers are moving into retirement.0 -
Wasn't sure which thread to post this in as there are so many parallels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/opini ... cracy.html0 -
The trouble is you don't know how much you don't know, and the more you know, the more you know how little you know. Generally those with the least knowledge or understanding will be those showing the least doubt. And those showing the least doubt will have the least knowledge or understanding, or be pathological liars.Joelsim wrote:Wasn't sure which thread to post this in as there are so many parallels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/opini ... cracy.html0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
The trouble is you don't know how much you don't know, and the more you know, the more you know how little you know. Generally those with the least knowledge or understanding will be those showing the least doubt. And those showing the least doubt will have the least knowledge or understanding, or be pathological liars.Joelsim wrote:Wasn't sure which thread to post this in as there are so many parallels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/opini ... cracy.html
I admire you for writing that, but would say those with the least knowledge are those who haven't bothered to read anything about it. Or those who have ulterior motives.0 -
Disappointingly looks like May won't discuss leaving the single market in parliament.
The defence isn't great; that she's channelling the will of the people. It doesn't fill you with confidence in parliamentary democracy.
Then again, I would say that since I know most MPs want to remain (though, granted for good reason).0
