|
|
| Author |
Message |
| to v or not to v |
This post is not being displayed .
|
to v or not to v
World Chat Champion
Joined: 24 Nov 2020
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
   |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C
Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :
|
 Posted: 11:27 - 14 May 2025  Post subject: |
 |
|
| sickpup wrote: | Brexit had nothing to do with illegal immigration, you just thought it did. |
You're forgetting during the 2015 migrant crisis the swarm were being allowed to cross the continent, and I'm pretty sure we'd have been enthusiastically taking them in (like Germany & Sweden) had the EU referendum not been on the horizon.
| sickpup wrote: | Brexit could only ever control legal immigration but unfortunately the legal immigration it controlled was people from Europe who essentially share our belief systems, many Eastern/Central Europeans are Catholic/Christian and wanted to come here to raise families while working jobs the English wouldn't do. |
I don't recall it being personal against Poles etc., it was just the numbers. Poland joined the EU in 2004 and by 2016...
Poland is the most common non-UK country of birth (an estimated 911,000 residents) and Polish the most common non-British nationality in the UK; in 2016
| sickpup wrote: | How was Brexit ever going to control illegal immigration, afterall, it's illegal so doesn't follow the law? |
Because the EU are trying to distribute illegal immigrants across EU countries?
Under the proposed rules, the EU's 27 countries will be required to either take in thousands of migrants from "frontline" countries, such as Italy, Greece and Spain, or provide extra funding or resources instead. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 13:27 - 14 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
| to v or not to v wrote: | nearly everyone i spoke to at the time who voted leave, said they did so to stop immigration. and i spoke to a lot of people. |
And you've just proved my point. I was using pretty plain English and yet you still didn't understand what I said which is pretty interesting in itself.
I will say it again, in plainer terms. Brexit, a political and legal move had no chance in and of itself to change illegal immigration. It doesn't matter how many people thought that was what they voting for, they weren't.
What would change illegal immigration is enforcement which didn't require us leaving the EU.
| M.C wrote: | You're forgetting during the 2015 migrant crisis the swarm were being allowed to cross the continent, and I'm pretty sure we'd have been enthusiastically taking them in (like Germany & Sweden) had the EU referendum not been on the horizon. |
I'm not forgetting anything, you're not understanding my point.
I neither suggested nor said it was personal. What I did do is point out that legal immigration was reduced by Brexit but illegal immigration, by virtue of being illegal hasn't been controlled by Brexit. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
So under this we could have removed illegal immigrants from the UK to be spread out across the UU or received additional funding to pay for them.
Something that is often (always) missed is that we at any time could have potentially removed asylum seekers legal and otherwise to France. Under international law, refugees are required to register in the first country they arrive in. This means in simple terms that although we don't know the first country, any asylum seekers arriving by boat or truck could have been returned to France as we know they came from there or France charged for their care.
The amusing thing here is I am neither arguing for or against Brexit, just pointing out the reasons being given for it were spurious at best. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C
Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:00 - 14 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
| sickpup wrote: | I'm not forgetting anything, you're not understanding my point. |
You said "Brexit had nothing to do with illegal immigration". People saw continental EU countries waving through a swarm of illegal immigrants, and thought if they don't control their borders, we need to shore up ours.
I posted this (image) earlier, Farage isn't pointing to a group of legal migrants...
| M.C wrote: | https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/06/16/16/nigelfarage1606.jpg?crop=8:5,smart&quality=75&auto=webp&width=1000 |
| sickpup wrote: | I neither suggested nor said it was personal. |
I never said you did  You were portraying them as 'good ones' and I was merely pointing out I don't recall people saying they were bad people, just that the numbers were excessive.
| sickpup wrote: | What I did do is point out that legal immigration was reduced by Brexit but illegal immigration, by virtue of being illegal hasn't been controlled by Brexit. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. |
I gave you two reasons; the hesitancy of Britain to take in infinity Syrians *Farage taps sign*, and the migration pact.
| sickpup wrote: | So under this we could have removed illegal immigrants from the UK to be spread out across the UU or received additional funding to pay for them. |
More take them or pay up... EU states refusing to host migrants may have to pay up to €20,000 a head
| sickpup wrote: | Something that is often (always) missed is that we at any time could have potentially removed asylum seekers legal and otherwise to France. Under international law, refugees are required to register in the first country they arrive in. This means in simple terms that although we don't know the first country, any asylum seekers arriving by boat or truck could have been returned to France as we know they came from there or France charged for their care. |
I've been saying to send them back to France for ages. It links back to point one, they shouldn't be able to cross continents and pass-through multiple EU countries.
| sickpup wrote: | The amusing thing here is I am neither arguing for or against Brexit, just pointing out the reasons being given for it were spurious at best. |
Yes you're the impartial intelligentsia  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:43 - 14 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't remember the political cry of, 'ban all immigrants especially those who come here legally, pay tax and contribute to society'
The great thing about a picture such as this one,
https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/06/16/16/nigelfarage1606.jpg?crop=8:5,smart&quality=75&auto=webp&width=1000
is you can take from it whatever you want to.
To one person it can mean stop all immigration, to others illegal immigration, to another person it means stop all immigration of off-white skinned people. To another person it means the latest Halo game has dropped and people are queuing for it.
The trick to this photo is that Nigel Farage, an intelligent man with an even more intelligent marketing team doesn't clearly say anything, he lets peoples imagination fill the gaps, its a known standard marketing trick. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C
Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:47 - 14 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
| sickpup wrote: | I don't remember the political cry of, 'ban all immigrants especially those who come here legally, pay tax and contribute to society' |
The cry was why is housing so unaffordable, the country feeling overcrowded, demand on services etc., all things even 'good' immigrants negatively impact.
| sickpup wrote: |
The great thing about a picture such as this one,
https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/06/16/16/nigelfarage1606.jpg?crop=8:5,smart&quality=75&auto=webp&width=1000
is you can take from it whatever you want to.
To one person it can mean stop all immigration, to others illegal immigration, to another person it means stop all immigration of off-white skinned people. To another person it means the latest Halo game has dropped and people are queuing for it.
The trick to this photo is that Nigel Farage, an intelligent man with an even more intelligent marketing team doesn't clearly say anything, he lets peoples imagination fill the gaps, its a known standard marketing trick. |
Not really if you consider the context (the 2015ish migrant crisis), and what it actually pictures (the 2015ish migrant crisis).
Last edited by M.C on 16:49 - 14 May 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo
World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 18:02 - 14 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
| Kawasaki Jimbo wrote: | How would I do that? |
You'd choose a handful of products and see what the percentage rises were in the UK versus the EU.
| Kawasaki Jimbo wrote: | On the matter of immigration, the EU’s free-movement and porous borders created an environment where it was easier and possibly cheaper to recruit foreigners than train our own people. |
Potentially yes but this was a fear for decades and it didn't happen. What tended to happen was the unskilled jobs filled up, I've known of Polish Nuclear Physicists working as Mini cab drivers as it provided a better standard of living.
| Kawasaki Jimbo wrote: | The ECHR makes it hard to take back control in some respects, and although Brexit didn’t mean we left the ECHR’s jurisdiction as some people thought, it would be hard to leave as an EU member. Of course, we still haven’t left because it’s a complex issue and because Parliament doesn’t want to. |
All fair points, I agree. I'm not sure we can ever leave the jurisdiction of the ECHR or that it would be a good idea. Even if we left its Jurisdiction we would remain within the sphere of influence so although we might not have to listen to what is said, others could act against us due to its rulings if they so wished as as has happened to Russia in the past.
The same applies to taking back our sovereignty, its often said that this is what Brexit was about, but, we still have to work in accordance with the EU rules if we want to export to them. This has been shown by how much meat, seafood etc has gone to waste at the border due to the wrong paperwork. What use is sovereignty if it doesn't gain you anything?
| Kawasaki Jimbo wrote: | I’m not sure that’s fixed in law, and does it mean that’s the country they’ll settle in? If it was so, why did we never return the boat-people to France? I think we should anyway. |
Take a look at whats known as the Dublin regulation or Dublin 111 Regulation which could definitely have been used while we were members of the EU and could still possibly be used as we are subject to the ECHR.
I've never understood why we didn't use it, politics I guess, although iirc Ireland tried to use it against us last year.
| M.C wrote: | The cry was why is housing so unaffordable, the country feeling overcrowded, demand on services etc., all things even 'good' immigrants negatively impact. |
In regards to housing this has little to do with immigration and more to do with the rapid pay rises during the Thatcher years as the UK finally paid off for the WW11, the selling off of social housing stock, money from these sales being held in the accounts of an ageing population, there are so many reasons and only one involves immigrants living in the houses.
The next thing we will see which will drive up prices will be financial institutions buying up properties because the profits are too high to ignore as has happened in the USA. Yes, the USA with its huge amounts of cheap land and abundant housing is also suffering a housing crises.
Services I agree with, lack of government investment.
Feeling crowded is pretty silly reason to lock yourself up on an island when you had free movement across a continent.
| M.C wrote: | Not really if you consider the context (the 2015ish migrant crisis), and what it actually pictures (the 2015ish migrant crisis). |
You've just done exactly what I said was the aim of the picture, to place your meaning on it and use to to justify your actions. They could have been queuing up for free cream teas. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C
Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :
|
Posted: 20:20 - 14 May 2025  Post subject: |
|
|
| sickpup wrote: | In regards to housing this has little to do with immigration |
Even during the Brexit debates the mainstream media conceded that mass immigration impacted housing costs, and considering our population growth and therefore demand for housing is driven by immigration it's a major factor.
| sickpup wrote: | Yes, the USA with its huge amounts of cheap land and abundant housing is also suffering a housing crises. |
That's really strange, can't figure out why that would be...
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/datahub/thumbnail-US-ImmNumberShare.png
| sickpup wrote: | the selling off of social housing stock, money from these sales being held in the accounts of an ageing population, there are so many reasons and only one involves immigrants living in the houses. |
I've argued many times on here that selling off social housing was a mistake, but it ties into...
| sickpup wrote: | Services I agree with, lack of government investment. |
If you're going to go down the mass immigration route, the least you can do is build homes and make sure services can cope. Instead they didn't and just called anyone who complained racist.
| sickpup wrote: | Feeling crowded is pretty silly reason to lock yourself up on an island when you had free movement across a continent. |
Maybe some people like living in their ancestral homeland?
| sickpup wrote: | You've just done exactly what I said was the aim of the picture, to place your meaning on it and use to to justify your actions. They could have been queuing up for free cream teas. |
 It's not a piece of modern art. It's a picture of the migrant crisis during the migrant crisis. The text is explicit; take back control of our borders. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
| Posted: 21:32 - 14 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
So we're agreed then: Brexit was a thing people had and still have mixed feelings about but it's done now so no use crying about it - it's the past. Good? Great! Glad that's sorted.
The present sees as stuck with a government headed by a Communist but also the most Far-Right since WW2. I know it's a little confusing but bear with us till normal service is resumed... maybe 2028 or 2029.
And the future looks like Remigration, lots of it. Your waiter in the curry house overstaying on a student visa? Gone. Your nan's care worker who got the job with a fake CV? Gone. Sorry, sonny, if you want your elderly relatives abused you'll have to do it yourself from now on. Your Albanian drug dealer? Gone. What horror to face the world sober and straight, to see the last three decades of decay in bright sunlight. And your oh so precious murderers, rapists and paedophiles? Gone to a place far away, the further the better. Who will rape our daughters now?
Weep now, weep softly into your soy-latte.
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C
Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo
World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Polarbear
Super Spammer
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:25 - 16 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
| Polarbear wrote: | What an utterly stupid statement. Over half a million migrants a year have quote ' little effect on housing'. So where do they live? in the trees? (Can I say that or will the thought police get involved?) Jesus. If 1.5 million homes over 5 years, Labours pledge , is going to sort everything, 3.5 million immigrants over the same period is going to use all them, and more.
Jesus sickpup, come on. |
But is it a stupid statement?
It is if you want to use the figures to stop immigration but not if you actually take time to look at the problem.
First of all, a house is no longer just a house, it is a store of wealth, a commodity that is deliberately kept in short supply (whether by not building or pricing high) where needed as it keeps the prices buoyant. This takes away affordable homes.
There are various places in the UK where houses are cheap, this is because no one wants to live there, generally because there is no work. So what we in fact have isn't just a housing shortage, its a housing shortage where people want to live.
I still know places where I can buy a house for less than I earn a year but its no use buying them as I can't live there and work where I do.
Inner cities have been turned into massive sky high blocks of offices. We've all seen it, in my case industry has been pushed out of Central London to surrounding areas and further and been replaced by coffee shops and offices.
When I was a kid the road opposite mine was factories that produced reproduction furniture. These factories have been turned into high cost housing and offices. Railway arches, turned from B1 light industrial premises to offices.
The loss of industry to offices is so bad in London that the water table is rising by 3 metres per year which could get interesting in the next 10 years or so.
Offices have a higher density of staff than industrial use premises. Industrial use tends to only have a couple of floors at most, offices, the skies the limit.
So, higher density work environments need more staff to make them worthwhile. With this comes the need for more homes, ideally close by but this pushes up the prices which is basic supply and demand and creates a housing shortage.
You can actually see this in a microcosm around Morriston in Swansea where the DVLA office is. It's on a smaller scale to London, Bristol, Manchester etc as there are less people so the sprawl can be greater.
This effect has been known about for decades, it's why the DVLA are in Swansea, Companies house is in Cardiff, the Patent Office is in Newport, the Land Registry is in Swansea. Its why the BBC moved much of its staff to Manchester, Salford Quays and why this Goverment announced this two days ago. Its called decentralisation and was the reason Canary Wharf was built BUT because Canary Wharf was so successful at attracting businesses it has become it's own problem.
Now, we could open a Government department requiring 1000 members of staff up a Welsh Valley where you can buy a 3 bedroom house for £55,000 and they are always available as well as Council houses BUT if we do that, we create an instant price rise and a housing shortage IN THE PLACE WE NEED IT. It isn't a housing shortage as such, because there are houses available elsewhere, just not where we need it.
Working from home could have helped solve the housing crisis as people could live wherever they wanted, not near work, but there is the belief, rightly or wrongly that people working from home are shirking work.
As has been pointed out on BCF previously, immigrants want to live in London and other high population dense environments. If work was decentralised away from these places the housing problems would be considerably eased and only then would immigration become the primary factor you see it as being.
If you need further reading on this look up the history of Milton Keynes or Ebenezer Howards Garden Cities plan for how planned Cities develop as opposed to those that grow organically. You can even look at the London Ringways projects which failed to materialise exacerbating the housing problems in London.
If you really want to delve into historical housing problems and how its nothing new you could even read about the Old Nichol slum which was demolished in the 1890's to be replaced by the first Estate in the world with inside toilets, the Boundary, which became Heroin Central in the 1980's. Or read about the 1960's slum clearances in Liverpool or Manchester in the 1950's.
| Easy-X wrote: | Just for argument's sake, could you foresee any downsides for say a country of 50 million people increasing its population by 50% over a couple of decades? |
Of course it would cause problems if the infrastructure wasn't there to support them but the pyramid scheme of services and pensions requires this growth or for people to live shorter lives.
| Kawasaki Jimbo wrote: | Good for the university business but it denies places to British youths, continuing the dependence on an imported workforce and disadvantaging the locals. It’s no way for a nation to treat its people. |
That in itself is debatable as the costs would be higher for the British students, could they afford to be on the course? Would you then complain the courses were elitist? Would you pay higher taxes so that more British youths could go to university? |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:39 - 16 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
100% agree, seems obvious doesn't it. And if it's obvious to us plebs with supposedly zero resources beyond reasoning and your own eyes the what the actual fuck is going on in government. They have advisers and civil servants and researchers and secretaries. It's almost as if they knew what would happen and did it anyway 
One moment, my wife's back from the shops. "Honey, did you remember the tin foil I asked for?"
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BTTD |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BTTD
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Polarbear
Super Spammer
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
| Posted: 00:40 - 17 May 2025 Post subject: |
|
|
| sickpup wrote: | | Polarbear wrote: | What an utterly stupid statement. Over half a million migrants a year have quote ' little effect on housing'. So where do they live? in the trees? (Can I say that or will the thought police get involved?) Jesus. If 1.5 million homes over 5 years, Labours pledge , is going to sort everything, 3.5 million immigrants over the same period is going to use all them, and more.
Jesus sickpup, come on. |
But is it a stupid statement?
It is if you want to use the figures to stop immigration but not if you actually take time to look at the problem.
First of all, a house is no longer just a house, it is a store of wealth, a commodity that is deliberately kept in short supply (whether by not building or pricing high) where needed as it keeps the prices buoyant. This takes away affordable homes.
There are various places in the UK where houses are cheap, this is because no one wants to live there, generally because there is no work. So what we in fact have isn't just a housing shortage, its a housing shortage where people want to live.
I still know places where I can buy a house for less than I earn a year but its no use buying them as I can't live there and work where I do.
Inner cities have been turned into massive sky high blocks of offices. We've all seen it, in my case industry has been pushed out of Central London to surrounding areas and further and been replaced by coffee shops and offices.
When I was a kid the road opposite mine was factories that produced reproduction furniture. These factories have been turned into high cost housing and offices. Railway arches, turned from B1 light industrial premises to offices.
The loss of industry to offices is so bad in London that the water table is rising by 3 metres per year which could get interesting in the next 10 years or so.
Offices have a higher density of staff than industrial use premises. Industrial use tends to only have a couple of floors at most, offices, the skies the limit.
So, higher density work environments need more staff to make them worthwhile. With this comes the need for more homes, ideally close by but this pushes up the prices which is basic supply and demand and creates a housing shortage.
You can actually see this in a microcosm around Morriston in Swansea where the DVLA office is. It's on a smaller scale to London, Bristol, Manchester etc as there are less people so the sprawl can be greater.
This effect has been known about for decades, it's why the DVLA are in Swansea, Companies house is in Cardiff, the Patent Office is in Newport, the Land Registry is in Swansea. Its why the BBC moved much of its staff to Manchester, Salford Quays and why this Goverment announced this two days ago. Its called decentralisation and was the reason Canary Wharf was built BUT because Canary Wharf was so successful at attracting businesses it has become it's own problem.
Now, we could open a Government department requiring 1000 members of staff up a Welsh Valley where you can buy a 3 bedroom house for £55,000 and they are always available as well as Council houses BUT if we do that, we create an instant price rise and a housing shortage IN THE PLACE WE NEED IT. It isn't a housing shortage as such, because there are houses available elsewhere, just not where we need it.
Working from home could have helped solve the housing crisis as people could live wherever they wanted, not near work, but there is the belief, rightly or wrongly that people working from home are shirking work.
As has been pointed out on BCF previously, immigrants want to live in London and other high population dense environments. If work was decentralised away from these places the housing problems would be considerably eased and only then would immigration become the primary factor you see it as being.
If you need further reading on this look up the history of Milton Keynes or Ebenezer Howards Garden Cities plan for how planned Cities develop as opposed to those that grow organically. You can even look at the London Ringways projects which failed to materialise exacerbating the housing problems in London.
If you really want to delve into historical housing problems and how its nothing new you could even read about the Old Nichol slum which was demolished in the 1890's to be replaced by the first Estate in the world with inside toilets, the Boundary, which became Heroin Central in the 1980's. Or read about the 1960's slum clearances in Liverpool or Manchester in the 1950's.
| Easy-X wrote: | Just for argument's sake, could you foresee any downsides for say a country of 50 million people increasing its population by 50% over a couple of decades? |
Of course it would cause problems if the infrastructure wasn't there to support them but the pyramid scheme of services and pensions requires this growth or for people to live shorter lives.
| Kawasaki Jimbo wrote: | Good for the university business but it denies places to British youths, continuing the dependence on an imported workforce and disadvantaging the locals. It’s no way for a nation to treat its people. |
That in itself is debatable as the costs would be higher for the British students, could they afford to be on the course? Would you then complain the courses were elitist? Would you pay higher taxes so that more British youths could go to university? |
So every immigrant wants to live in London/Manchester/Luton/Rochdale etc. etc. but not the valleys. Exactly, every immigrant is taking homes in the most desirable places So those 500,000 a year do make a difference to home availability in those areas.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating