Is Britain full?

[bovlomov]

To those dating Western Oppression back 14 centuries: You do realise that on those timescales, Islam is an imported religion whose supporters violently invaded a (mixed religion, pre-Islamic) group of states (mostly built around the Christian state of Byzantium), who destroyed the irrigation systems of what had been the grain-basket of the Mediteranean world, because they preferred open plains? The first Western crusades to that land were a direct response to the request for help from the Byzantines.

Of course there were Crusades preached before that. One example was the invasion of a small island kingdom off NW Europe.

Although I am always criticizing the UK here, I don't believe we are uniquely bad either in modern times or in a wider historical context. But what the UK does, and has done, is our responsibility and we should act accordingly.

On a related point: our mistreatment of various people around the world doesn't necessarily beatify the victims. Some of them may have been every bit as bad as us, or worse. We don't have their bad behaviour on our conscience though.

[Ben@Forest]

... It makes me want to weep when I see Tescos stuffed full of flowers from Kenya while 3.5 million Kenyans suffer from malnutrition...

To add to what other people have said about this I once met an M&S food buyer on a course. She said that for every pressure group agitating about the food miles in Kenyan-grown green beans there was another trying to get the company to source Kenyan green beans because they were from a workers co-operative and with the income earned they had set up a primary school to educate their children, etc, etc... It's not an easy choice because I guess everyone would regards a workers' co-operative educating kids as a good thing.

[bovlomov]

... It makes me want to weep when I see Tescos stuffed full of flowers from Kenya while 3.5 million Kenyans suffer from malnutrition...

To add to what other people have said about this I once met an M&S food buyer on a course. She said that for every pressure group agitating about the food miles in Kenyan-grown green beans there was another trying to get the company to source Kenyan green beans because they were from a workers co-operative and with the income earned they had set up a primary school to educate their children, etc, etc... It's not an easy choice because I guess everyone would regards a workers' co-operative educating kids as a good thing.

I seem to remember hearing that getting northern European beans to the supermarket shelf used more energy than for African beans, as most of the year the former required heated greenhouses. Whatever the pros and cons for beans, I can't think of any reason why cut flowers need to be flown around the world. Or produced at all, come to think of it.

[Ben@Forest]

I seem to remember hearing that getting northern European beans to the supermarket shelf used more energy than for African beans, as most of the year the former required heated greenhouses. Whatever the pros and cons for beans, I can't think of any reason why cut flowers need to be flown around the world. Or produced at all, come to think of it.

But I suppose that flowers grown in Dutch hothouses may have the same higher 'carbon footprint' than African flowers. But as to the use of flowers then you're down the slippery slope of what is or isn't required or a 'luxury'. Imported hardwood flooring? Wine? Rugs or carpets? Rose oil? I think that all of those things could be regarded as luxuries but also that support companies, workforces and families who need the market demand.

[Vorpal]

We can't stop migration of this nature. The world has become, in a way, a global country. It is certainly a global economy, and too late to put the lid back on that one. It is a problem that different countries deal with these thing differently, though, and unfair on the countries that take more than their fair share of refugees.

No, Britain is not full, but the refugee crisis isn't only a British problem, either. It is a global problem, and it needs a global solution.

It's not the first refugee crisis, and I doubt it will be the last refugee crisis, either, though we don't always hear about these things (e.g. 500 000 Somalis living in Kenya, mostly in camps) because they do not impact us.

Any citizen of the EU or EEA countries can emmigrate to another member state. And British citizens can also emmigrate easily to many Commonwealth nations. More than 5 million Britons live abroad. Is that a crisis? Or is fine as long as it just well-educated middle class moving from one country to another?

I don't think that fundamentalism has very much to do with it. Although the UK and USA contributed to the current economic and politcal situation (which influences the rise of fundamentalism), fundamentalism occurs in most religions. I think extremism is largely a separate issue to religion, even if religion to some extent enables extremism. That some extremists are Islamic makes no more difference than that some extremists are Christian. Religion is an excuse for extremism, not a reason for it.

As for school places, health care, etc.; well, it looks a bit more affordable in a country that spends half or less (as percentage of GDP) than the UK on military. Which would you rather pay for? Missiles? A new submarine? Fighter jets? Or medical examinations, school places, and winter clothes for children who have been forced out of their homes by civil war?

I know which I would choose.

[bovlomov]

then you're down the slippery slope of what is or isn't required or a 'luxury'.

Yes, I admit it. I am prejudiced against cut flowers. They seem to represent the most disposable of disposable luxuries.

[blackbike]

We are told immigrants are an economic and social benefit to a country.

Our government should propose that the current large number of migrants/refugees from the middle east are sent to poor countries in Africa, south America or Asia - or even Russia or some eastern European countries.

These countries need a boost to their economies much more than we do. They'd really benefit from the skills and enthusiasm of a large number of new citizens.

It seems odd and perhaps a bit selfish for Germany to take so many of these people when it is already a rich country.

[Ben@Forest]

No, Britain is not full, but the refugee crisis isn't only a British problem, either. It is a global problem, and it needs a global solution.

I think the idea that Britain is not full is only true from uniquely human perspective. Can we fit more people in - yes. But can we sustain anything like the natural fauna and flora of the country - no. 72% of our land is farmland, rivers and streams have been canalised, floodplains and water meadows have been drained. We are the second most deforested country in Europe. Much of the remaining woodland is not of a natural type. People see green in the countryside and they think - 'Wildlife'. But of course it isn't.

About 20 years ago somebody wrote an article saying 'British Wildlife is dead it just doesn't know it yet'. More people will mean more pressure. So if you are only concerned about humans then fine - if you actually want to retain something of our natural habitats for other species then you have to think a bit harder.

[al_yrpal]

Last time I was in Kenya all the Masai Warriors were sporting digital watches and iPhones. They had solar panels around the back of their huts and guess what, their cattle are their food. The drink the blood, drink the milk and eat the meat and not much else.
What Africa needs is fair trade, in Kenya that means Kenyan produce and flowers, and tourism. The proceeds of that trickle down through the economy enriching peoples lives. Like the Egyptians the Kenyans are lovely people. We never have any scruples buying anything from third world countries. Every penny we spend is worth many in handouts, who wants to scrounge rather than have a wage? If you push the door wide open in Britain they will flood in from everywhere and our country will eventually collapse and the unpleasant areas will become much worse. There should be strict fair and logical limits on immigration.

Al

[bovlomov]

These countries need a boost to their economies much more than we do. They'd really benefit from the skills and enthusiasm of a large number of new citizens.

Isn't that what happened with the Indians in Uganda? Unfortunately their success didn't prevent Idi Amin from using them as convenient scapegoats.

[Psamathe]

No, Britain is not full, but the refugee crisis isn't only a British problem, either. It is a global problem, and it needs a global solution.

I think the idea that Britain is not full is only true from uniquely human perspective. Can we fit more people in - yes. But can we sustain anything like the natural fauna and flora of the country - no. 72% of our land is farmland, rivers and streams have been canalised, floodplains and water meadows have been drained. We are the second most deforested country in Europe. Much of the remaining woodland is not of a natural type. People see green in the countryside and they think - 'Wildlife'. But of course it isn't.

About 20 years ago somebody wrote an article saying 'British Wildlife is dead it just doesn't know it yet'. More people will mean more pressure. So if you are only concerned about humans then fine - if you actually want to retain something of our natural habitats for other species then you have to think a bit harder.

I agree. Whilst there might be the physical land to build more houses, things like a reliable water supply become more of a concern in some areas of the country (particularly with the changes from Climate Change). Even the Environment Agency has started to raise the question about desalination plants!

Things like 1/3 of UK GPs planning to retire within the next 5 years and it takes a lot longer than that to train up replacements (though Mr. Hunt would probably drive away most potential applicants anyway). So there are major questions about the UK having the resources for the population it has already grown to let alone to keep growing.

People take up a lot more space than the footprint of their home.

Ian

[Vorpal]

If we built more energy efficient housing and learned to be less wasteful, Britain could absorb many more people than the proposed numbers of refugees without significant impact on the environment. That's probably true of most Western countries.

If Britain is full, we'd better not let any expatriates return, either.

[Psamathe]

If we built more energy efficient housing and learned to be less wasteful, Britain could absorb many more people than the proposed numbers of refugees without significant impact on the environment. That's probably true of most Western countries.

If Britain is full, we'd better not let any expatriates return, either.

It's not just energy. Refuse, health (where are we going to get the GPs just to look after the current population levels), water, transport, carbon emissions (far broader then "energy efficient homes"), etc., etc.

Re: letting expats return: It's about population numbers, not where those people are from. So if expats start returning (and given their not needing visas), then we need to look at other reasons for increasing population.

Ian

[beardy]

Personally I think there are different issues that are often merged together.

I see UK population numbers as a separate issue from that of immigration/refugees. And before the question of immigration can really be answered we need to establish what is an acceptable population for the UK. And somebody who has been raised in a high population density area of a city will have a very different opinion from somebody who has always lived in a rural area.

It also becomes a bigger question than one of how many people you can squeeze into each sq mile. Population brings pollution, through general waste (e.g. landfill), energy consumption (greenhouse gasses), etc. Put people in high density housing and you can fit more accommodation per sq mile, but you can't squeeze e.g. the landfill in the same way, etc. People take up a lot more land area than the footprint of their accommodation.

To me it is not a matter of cultural/religious background of those living in the UK. It is just numbers and the problems caused by high numbers. Things people raise like language will disappear quickly (as children learn e.g. English) and if they are not, then it does not take a lot of changes to see that they do.

It all becomes a very confused debate because it is all muddled us as population/immigration/racism/EU/etc. Some politicians make matters artificially worse by using these issues to further unrelated political agenda (e.g. stir-up the immigration/racists so they all want to leave the EU).

Personally I think the UK has too high a population already. But that is just numbers of people in a limited land area. To me there seems no political will to address the population issue. For example, UK has a (too) high and increasing population with an NHS service massively under-funded (to the point where people are not getting treatment they need). So why are we providing IVF on the NHS when we don't need more babies, can't afford it, etc. (I don't have any issues with IVF, just IVF paid for on NHS at the present time, in the current circumstances).

Ian

This is pretty much how I see things, I have moved out of town and city life ages ago, I couldnt stand it in those overpopulated areas where everybody is tripping over each other, banging into each other and in permanent conflict, look at the road videos on this forum coming out of London, looks like hell to me.

Just to add a bit of heresy to the conventional thinking, why is a rich, educated foreigner who had a good life but couldnt keep their gob shut some how considered worthy of being given a chance but somebody born poor with no chance of ever getting a decent life in their own country (not due to them causing trouble) is not worthy of coming to have a chance here.
My family is, I think, entirely of the economic migrant class if you go back three generations.

In actual fact the country has a net worth and more people means less each.

I suppose a ban on the immigration of refugees would be considered an unacceptable solution to the over population, so how about a nice race, class and gender neutral plague (not transmitted by specific types of sexual activity) which wipes out half of us, a sort of Natural Lottery.
The survivors get to possess their neighbours' wealth. Housing shortage and poverty now cured, Labour shortage means unemployment down and wages go up.

PS: I would be an economic migrant to NZ(4.5m) or Australia(24m) if they would take me.

[tyreon]

I found Blackbike's comments of great interest. Ippon! Blackbike uses guile to counter and sidestep obligatory population growth equals betterment to set up something I hadn't even thought of!