If we vote for Brexit what happens

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

I also prefer our wonderful mountains, the lakes, the beaches, the museums and our fantastic places of interest to be less crowded rather than doomed to be more and more inaccessible

Does that mean you'd vote for policies which disincentivise high birth rates here? You'd also have to vote for policies which increase tax and/or extend the retirement age as the population lives longer. What if we invent anti-ageing tech and even a lower birth rate still meant a rapidly increasing population?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Does that mean you'd vote for policies which disincentivise high birth rates here? You'd also have to vote for policies which increase tax and/or extend the retirement age as the population lives longer. What if we invent anti-ageing tech and even a lower birth rate still meant a rapidly increasing population?

why does that matter?
whatever my view on that, deliberate planned immigration makes the situation (whatever it is) worse than it would otherwise be:

as I've said many times, I don't do reduction ad absurdum, as I am a practical person concerned with practical outcomes that benefit the people of the UK

cells

michaels wrote: »

Taking a big risk here without googling but suspect it will take several (hundred/thousand) years of population growth at those rates before population density in Aus and Canada reaches that of the UK.

national population density is irrelevant most people live in urban centres at quite typical urban densities irrespective or how much outback there is

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I was commenting on how surprised I am on the low level of people wanting to go to Aus.
I would expect it to be much higher.

Its already very high more about twice your uk unacceptable levels

cells

MataNui wrote: »

Shooting yourself in the foot with that statement.
Both countries have highly targeted immigration rules. You have to have needed skill (on a published list), have enough points which are based on things like age, education etc and NOT have any criminal record. They have a higher percentage its true but all of those are people those countries specifically chose to allow to move there.

Also as mentioned is the population density. At current rates the human race would likely be extinct before Australia had the same population density as the UK which is already one of the highest in the EU.

if austalia could system 2% population growth a year it would take about 210 years to get to the same density as the UK and I would hope the human race has more of a future than 210 years

and as Generali seems to suggest their rules seem pretty much come on in we need/want virtually everyone

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Its already very high more about twice your uk unacceptable levels

I was commenting upon generali view that immigration into Aus was essentially unrestricted.
In that context, I would expect a hugely greater number of immigrants (and it had no reference to the UK) i.e. in the 10s of millions rather than a few hundred thousand

michaels

cells wrote: »

national population density is irrelevant most people live in urban centres at quite typical urban densities irrespective or how much outback there is

Lets choose one of the largest cities - Sydney, population density 374 per square km. Compare with London - 5100, and I don't suppose Sydney is surrounded by a no development zone either,,,,

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I was commenting upon generali view that immigration into Aus was essentially unrestricted.
In that context, I would expect a hugely greater number of immigrants (and it had no reference to the UK) i.e. in the 10s of millions rather than a few hundred thousand

Nowhere can take an infinite number of people, however I think 2% a year is quite high and I am surprised that both australia and canada seem to have been able and willing to sustain it now for decades

To put it into perspective in just 260 years if Canada and Australia immigration continued at 2% a year then they would have a combined population of 10 billion or the whole world.

This actually leads to another important point which has yet to be discussed. net positive immigration is clearly temporary as clearly noted in the example above. So we may see a few decades of net immigration and then it will stop.


So you will get your wish Mr Clapton one way or another net immigration will be stopped. The question is do we want to become a rich populous growing powerful nation growing at 1% a year or do we want to become a pooer weaker nation shrinking at 1% a year?

cells

michaels wrote: »

Lets choose one of the largest cities - Sydney, population density 374 per square km. Compare with London - 5100, and I don't suppose Sydney is surrounded by a no development zone either,,,,

its just a game of drawing invisible lines on a map and putting up a meaningless number.

What if the definition of London changed from its current invisible line to a new invisible line over the M25? The density of London then falls from your 5,100 to ~3,800 would people be living any less or more dense in London2.0? What if the invisible line was 40 miles outside the M25 then London3.0 becomes ~1,00 per square km?


lots of sydney is empty which is why it looks less dense.
lots of London3.0 would be empty whiich is why it would look less dense

cells

cells wrote: »

its just a game of drawing invisible lines on a map and putting up a meaningless number.

What if the definition of London changed from its current invisible line to a new invisible line over the M25? The density of London then falls from your 5,100 to ~3,800 would people be living any less or more dense in London2.0? What if the invisible line was 40 miles outside the M25 then London3.0 becomes ~1,00 per square km?


lots of sydney is empty which is why it looks less dense.
lots of London3.0 would be empty whiich is why it would look less dense

or to think of it another way

Sydney has 114 sq km with a density over 5,000 persons per sq km.

There are 21 sq km in Sydney with a population higher than 8,000 persons; the densest square kilometre, which includes Potts Point and Woolloomooloo, has 15,000 residents.


That 1km2 in sydney with 15,000 people is more dense than even the densest borough in London