If we vote for Brexit what happens

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

sorry I didn't realise you were being a pratt.
no I don't support breeding control

and in case you wish to ask how I reconcile 'no breeding controls' with immigration control, I am a liberterian democrat that believes achieving things in a pragmatic way.
breeding controls are inappropriate in our society, immigration controls aren't.

No need to be personal about stuff

michaels

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I wonder what the Kippers will do when the referendum is a resounding REMAIN.

Will they finally shut up?

Should the forum order a nice big order of humble pie for Clapton to chow down on, in readiness?


Clapton prepares to tuck in

Not a great day for remain, time to revert to rule 1 - play the man not the ball.

Filo25 wrote: »

New Orb poll out this evening

Leave 55 previously 51
Remain 45 previously 49

Makes me very glad I put some more cash on Leave yesterday!

See.

Mistermeaner

Clapton: a lot of the benefits current retirees enjoy is on the fact that there are now far more people working paying tax to fund their non working retirement than there are of them - they are taking out far more than they ever put in and without population growth this is not sustasinable.

Without population growth who will be paying in to cover cost of current working age people in retirement?

Moby

I see the little Englanders have been out in force tonight smashing up parts of Marseilles...expressing their xenophobia in their own special way! Hoisting their crosses of St Georges everywhere and chanting at the locals............makes me so proud to be British! EEEEENNNNNNGGGGGEEEERRRRRLLLLAAAANNNNND!:mad: SCUM!

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

If the natives are going towards 1 child per women what exactly are you going to preserve in a few generations time?

if the facts change then I change my actions: at the moment the population is optimum for the overall multi-dimensional welfare of the people of the UK.
I will review in one generations time

without a doubt, and I think you know this to be true but wont admit it here, a higher population allows higher productivity. The whole point of 'free trade' is to in effect allow a higher 'virtual' population

the way you tell it this seems a universal truth : is it true for all countries and all circumstance?

Productivity does not equate to a better life or a nice family sized house for young people or an attractive outlook or like minded people
High productivity doesn't equate to high output.
Free trade doesn't equate to free movement of people

Why hasn't immigration into Spain, Greece, South Africa etc lead to an economic boom?

[/QUOTE]

Imagine a small island with 10,000 people. can they afford to allocate 5,000 people to research and develop medicines? No. Jump to a nation of 10 million and yes they can allocate 5,000 to that task.

Think of a nation say England, can it allocate £170 billion and 1/10rd of its workforce into a space program? No not really. What about a country of 300 million like say the USA can they allocate 3 million people and £170B into developing space tech. yes.


The bigger the population the more specialization that is possible and the more specialization the higher the productivity wealth and well being.

Now free trade allows the same. If 10,000 islands of 10,000 population have free trade then one island could potentially allocate half its workforce to drugs R&D and trade that for the goods and services they cant produce as they have allocated most of their resources to that task.

So free trade somewhat relieves the need for higher population (except worldwide but thats another discussion).


But there are also local factors where free trade does not help in this regard and you need a higher local population. For example a country of 5 million will have a more dificult time building out a cheap affordable grid v a country of 50 million and the country of 500 million will have the best of all of them. The reason is experience. The first country maybe only needs 2 power stations the next 20 and the last 200 the country with 200 to build is going to have a better cost and productivity per unit than the country with 2 to build

I agree, free trade is a good thing :
no need for unwelcome immigration

and its a shame that the EU was founded on high tariff barriers to the rest of the world

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Clapton: a lot of the benefits current retirees enjoy is on the fact that there are now far more people working paying tax to fund their non working retirement than there are of them - they are taking out far more than they ever put in and without population growth this is not sustasinable.

Without population growth who will be paying in to cover cost of current working age people in retirement?

are you proposing the only hope for the world is exponential population growth ?

or are you proposing a neocolonial exploitation of the poorer nations?

At the current time the figures don't support the need for mass immigration
if, in 20 / 30 years time we have a problem then I agree with the neocolonial solution

but before then I expect improvement in productivity of goods and services, later retirement age, better health etc to sustain an excellent life for the peoples of the UK.

BobQ

This may interest some of you:

http://politicscounter.com/?p=81

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

It seems that in the EU we are only averagely Euroskeptical....

.

Pew’s ten-country survey finds that Britain is far from the most Eurosceptic country. .
Big majorities in all ten countries are unhappy with the way the EU is handling the challenge of refugees.
In all ten countries, more people want Brussels to shed power rather than continue to the journey towards “ever closer union”.

Also

AFTER JUNE 23

It is inconceivable that Britain will be allowed a “best of both worlds” deal – all the benefits of a close relationship with the EU without the costs and responsibilities of membership. If that, or anything like it, were to transpire, voters across Europe would demand the same for their own countries. In order to fend off domestic political pressures, our current partners would have to hang tough and show their own electorates that following Britain out of the EU would be painful.

In the long run, the best response to the public mood uncovered by Pew and YouGov would be for the EU to reform itself to be leaner and more efficient. Then, the long, slow slog towards respect for “Brussels” could start. Indeed, if the UK votes “remain” on June 23, we could play a big role in promoting a constructive reform agenda. Meanwhile, we should be in no doubt that a vote for Brexit will create huge problems for our partners. And if they don’t look us in the eye when they impose tough terms, it will not be because they are shame-faced but because they are looking over their shoulder at their own nervous and often angry voters.

Moby

BobQ wrote: »

This may interest some of you:

http://politicscounter.com/?p=81

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

It seems that in the EU we are only averagely Euroskeptical....



Also

Those sources quote me almost exactly;)

cells

So would it be fair to say your stance is that the population growth of the1990s was good, 1980s was good, 1970s was good, 1960s was good.....1810s was good, 1800s was good etc etc.

The only bad population growth is that what we are experiencing right here right now?


and yes a higher population is a good for most nations and systems but especially so for capitalist developed nations of which we are one. you know this to be true you just cant admit it. Were the UK undergoing population growth of 1 million a year 'naturally' i doubt you would pipe up one little bit

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you proposing the only hope for the world is exponential population growth ?

This isnt really the place to discuss that topic as it could be vast but imo a fully developed world would develop quicker and get rich faster with more people. To that end I think we are very lucky as the human race to be heading towards 10 billion and hopefully sustain that. so much more is possible at that figure than if say the world had only reached 0.7 billion today and was going towards 1 billion sustained (rather than what we have 7 billion and going towards 10)

but leave it out of here start a new thread if you want to discuss world population