Bulgarian and Romanian Immigrants

trex

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 15, 2011
7,703
2,669
about 1 out of 10 britons capable of work do not want a job, another 1 of 10 cannot hold down a full day job for one reason or another. Add the young, old and the ones with disability, there are just too many dependents on welfare. The EU forces our goverments to treat all EU citizens as if they were indiginous, causing the flow of welfare seekers to where it's easiest for them to claim. Over time, the UK with its weakest control structures will have a higher proportion of welfare dependents in comparision with France and Germany for example.
Besides getting out of the EU, the only logical way out is to legalize euthanasia.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
Over time, the UK with its weakest control structures will have a higher proportion of welfare dependents in comparision with France and Germany for example.
Simply not true, the vast majority of immigration is for the work opportunities and is enriching our country, I wish our own population would be so work-willing. Those immigrants who cannot avail themselves of work have mostly been returning to their own countries or moving elsewhere. The total of the exceptions is miniscule in relation to our 62 millions population.

It's our native population who are the welfare state dependents causing the problems as you note in your opening sentence.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
The real issue is not immigration but the fact that those already here have too many babies.
Quote from the latest statistics:

"Women here are now likely to have an average of just under two children after the latest increase in birthrate"

Meaning not enough to replace the population. Where's the problem?


 

John F

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 3, 2013
397
48
Quote from the latest statistics:

"Women here are now likely to have an average of just under two children after the latest increase in birthrate"

Meaning not enough to replace the population. Where's the problem?


er the problem is that the UK is now the most populous country in Europe as previously stated, which obviously puts a greater strain on many things, as others have state here.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
er the problem is that the UK is now the most populous country in Europe as previously stated, which obviously puts a greater strain on many things, as others have state here.
That's illogical. Germany has 30% more population while conversely Sweden has only 13% of our population. Both have services pro-rata to their size. Land mass is largely immaterial, except that our smaller land mass reduces many of our costs due to reduced distances.

So again, where's the problem?
 

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,145
3,002
I have a lot of sympathy with the "too many people" argument, but some of the problems you list are those of our own making and not population related. As shown both by the latest surveys and the many TV programs about A & E services, that problem is entirely one of abuse, and that mostly by our native population who seem to regard A & E as a form of doctors surgery. Nearly all those I've seen present are not in any way emergencies.

The police are overstretched and our prisons are full due to a gross excess of laws and an equally gross excess of enforcement. For much of my life the prison population hovered around 11,000, but in the space of just 17 years (before the big immigration surge) that was catapulted to the present constant of around 88,000. I do not believe that we suddenly became 8 times worse within a single generation, or that we need 8 times as many in prison for our country to function well.

Social services have too many cases in most instances due to our nanny state which interferes far too many times where it's unnecessary. Even where they are needed, the problems are all too often those created by the culture of irresponsibility that the welfare state created.

That just leaves food and energy from your list. We now produce far more food and are more self-sufficient than ever before as a result of our advances since the near disaster of WW2 when we were hopeless at feeding ourselves, leaving us just with energy to deal with.

Fracking and nuclear power, last problem solved.
I still believe that the problems which I listed are due to overpopulation. The more people that there are living in a country, the more demand there will be on the services and infrastructure of that country,

Time wasters at A & E Departments and Doctor's surgeries have always existed and always will. There is a percentage of any population who are like this, so it follows that the bigger the population, the number of time wasters will be greater. We notice them now because the service is crumbling under the weight of numbers (population), so we use time wasters as a convenient scape-goat. It's more palatable than to confront the true issue.

Prisons. Do you know how difficult it is to get a prison sentence? Criminals are being spared custodial sentences for some very serious offences. Offences for which they would have been put into prison, out of the way, unable to harm the public when we had a smaller population. It's the percentage rule again, there will be a percentage of wrong doers in any number of people. The more people there are, the more wrong doers there are and this puts strain on the justice system and then it fails the people, like it is doing now.

Schools, the more people, the more class places needed.

Food, we were 78% self sufficient in food in 1984, in 2009 that figure had plummeted to 59% and I expect that the 2014 figure is even lower. This is a worrying trend and an exploding population erodes the figure from both ends. The more people, the greater the demand for food and housing. So what do our governments do? Build houses on farm land. How utterly stupid and short sighted is this.

You will see that I still believe that all of our problems stem from there being too many people living here. Numbers can't continue to rise without us heading for disaster, it is a mathematical certainty. It will happen.

People sometimes say that immigrants work in hospitals and care homes looking after our aging population, and do all of the other essential jobs. They do, but who pays for them? Where does the money come from? Where is the money going to come from in a few years time? You have said that imagrants tend to return to their native country. You are probably right, they have allegiances their, they also send and take money "home." This is money which is not put back into the economy in which they are working, it's money taken out of our economy. It simply can't continue. This does happen and it is a real problem. It is also a problem which is being suppressed because it is inconvenient to let the public know about it. A native of this country, one with allegiances, one with a lifetime plan to live here will put their wages back into the economy.

We need to stop imigration dead in its tracks. People will immediately counter that with, "well what about the Polish brain surgeon?" What about him / her? We have enough people here, so let us invest in training the people who already live here. It may take 15 to 20 years to fix, but we have had 16 years of unprecedented damage done to the population of the country by Labour, Conservative and a Liberal governments, with their catastrophic multicultural experimentation and social engineering.
 
Last edited:

trex

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 15, 2011
7,703
2,669
Uk becomes poorer over the years since joining the EU.
Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

The data shows that relative to the EU average, britons are 15% poorer in the last 10 years while Germans are 8% richer in the same period.
Attracting large scale immigration from poorer regions of the EU did not do our average wealth much good.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
I still believe that the problems which I listed are due to overpopulation. The more people that there are living in a country, the more demand there will be on the services and infrastructure of that country,
This remains as flawed as ever as I pointed out, repeating it won't make it come true. Larger populations mean larger human forces so larger resources. Double the people creates double the demand with double the number of people to deal with it. That means there is no magic number since the ratio of supply and demand is the same for any size.

In respect of all the other issues, we can't now go backwards, 19th century Great Britain no longer exists so we need to make what we have work. To show how far our position has changed, how many people genuinely realise this fact:

The capital city of the United Kingdom, London, is no longer truly a British or English city.

As posted before, well under half the population are white Britons (44.9% and reducing), and well over a third were born in other countries (37% and increasing). We really are an international country now and will remain so for a long time. Eventually there will be a slow process of greater integration to form a new mix of Britons, similar to the process that occurred in the USA throughout the 20th century. As there, they will look different in many ways but will share a new set of common values, creating a new national identity which will be unrecognisable to those who yearn for the return of 19th century Great Britain. You'll doubtless have noticed how I've not mentioned the 20th century, and that's simply because that century has no one identity, it having been in constant flux from beginning to end.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
Uk becomes poorer over the years since joining the EU.
Eurostat - Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table

The data shows that relative to the EU average, britons are 15% poorer in the last 10 years while Germans are 8% richer in the same period.
Attracting large scale immigration from poorer regions of the EU did not do our average wealth much good.
As it didn't do the USA much good early in the 20th century, the process takes time and the cost always comes first.

That the Britons do less well than the Germans long predates the immigration surge, it's due to the relative failures of the native Britons over the last 68 years. Germany's strong position was in part created by an early policy of mass immigration from Turkey* to cope with the work their successful industries created. What's to stop us doing the same with our immigrants? Those failures of the native Britons, that's what.

*more than 4 million Turks and German citizens with part or full Turkish ancestry in Germany.
.
 
Last edited:

trex

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 15, 2011
7,703
2,669
What's to stop us doing the same with our immigrants? Those failures of the native Britons, that's what.
Germany has coalition goverments as the norm - a big factor that reduces reliance on buying votes from welfare dependents. Migration from economically weaker EU regions causes unfair competion on low skill employment, pushing native low skill workers toward benefits. Look at the changes in the number of electric wheelchairs and housing benefit claimants over the last 50 years.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
Germany has coalition goverments as the norm - a big factor that reduces reliance on buying votes from welfare dependents. Migration from economically weaker EU regions causes unfair competion on low skill employment, pushing native low skill workers toward benefits. Look at the changes in the number of electric wheelchairs and housing benefit claimants over the last 50 years.
So the answer is in our hands. That is all I've been saying all along, we only have ourselves, native Britons, to blame for the ills.
 

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,145
3,002
This remains as flawed as ever as I pointed out, repeating it won't make it come true. Larger populations mean larger human forces so larger resources. Double the people creates double the demand with double the number of people to deal with it. That means there is no magic number since the ratio of supply and demand is the same for any size.

In respect of all the other issues, we can't now go backwards, 19th century Great Britain no longer exists so we need to make what we have work. To show how far our position has changed, how many people genuinely realise this fact:
That is how it works in a laboratory. What has happened in the reality is that demand HAS increased due to there being more people. Spending on health per head of population fell in 2010 and in 2011, but he budgets were not cut. Why was this? It is because more people were placing demands on the service.

I accept that we can't reverse the terrible damage already done by an ill thought out, incoherent, badly managed immigration policy which has been overseen by a series of butt-headed reckless buffoons (there was even an MP called Mr Mark Reckless greeting new immigrant arrivals at an airport yesterday! How very apt). We can a least try and halt the damage. If I slip with a screwdriver and damage something, I don't reach for a bigger, sharper one and blindly carry on inflicting damage until it has been destroyed. I stop, re-assess and find an alternative way forward.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
Spending on health per head of population fell in 2010 and in 2011, but he budgets were not cut. Why was this? It is because more people were placing demands on the service.
This is the result of an inadequately controlled welfare state, ever increasing demand. That demand in A & Es for example is emphatically not due to immigrants as both surveys and the number of A & E programs on TV have shown directly to our eyes. It is the native and ageing population expecting ever more all the time.

The situation is little different with unemployment benefits, we have long had a large native population who simply don't want to work at all or want benefits while working in the black economy. The number of immigrants drawing benefits is miniscule in comparison as the data shows. We've been continuously failing since 1945 and it's foolish to blame our ills on immigration, we would have failed in the same way without any of it.

I fully agree with you about the mismanagement of our politicians who have underperformed in virtually every possible way, immigration control though being a very minor factor. A far greater factor is their continuing pretence that we are a leading world power and financing that illusion with our money and thus impoverishing us. That's why our welfare systems are underfunded while the EU countries who have no such pretences have far better services and benefits despite their often more generous immigration systems.

Polaris missile submarines, unnecessary overseas wars, Trident missile submarines, aircraft carriers, attack landing craft ships, helicopter gunships, drones, eurofighters, missile systems and expended ammunition are where our money has gone, little wonder we get poorer all the time.
.
 
Last edited:

John F

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 3, 2013
397
48
That's illogical. Germany has 30% more population while conversely Sweden has only 13% of our population. Both have services pro-rata to their size. Land mass is largely immaterial, except that our smaller land mass reduces many of our costs due to reduced distances.

So again, where's the problem?
From the green perspective our population is too large. If I recall correctly the optimum UK population for the land mass, and the resources available, is around 30 million.

Insert population density in lieu of population.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
From the green perspective our population is too large. If I recall correctly the optimum UK population for the land mass, and the resources available, is around 30 million.

Insert population density in lieu of population.
Fully agree John, and the same is true of the world as a whole. Given the way technology has reduced the need for labour, I'd love to see a self sustaining world of no more than 1.5 billions.
 

peerjay56

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 24, 2013
745
201
Nr Ingleton, N. Yorkshire
Fully agree John, and the same is true of the world as a whole. Given the way technology has reduced the need for labour, I'd love to see a self sustaining world of no more than 1.5 billions.
I suspect that agreement on which 5.7 billion to 'finally solve' would be difficult to reach...:(
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
46,175
22,909
I suspect that agreement on which 5.7 billion to 'finally solve' would be difficult to reach...:(
I'm not so sure. If we continue to make the world a less and less pleasant place to live, there should eventually come a point where volunteers will step forward. Even today we have campaigns to allow assisted suicide.

But of course the more practical way is to gradually reduce the birthrate, China has showed the way with considerable success. They biased on using the stick and the one child limit was too harsh, but the carrot is already known to be effective. It's common knowledge that the higher the standard of living, the lower the birth rate.

So a combination of making life thoroughly unpleasant except for those who comply with birth restriction policies* who receive a much better living will gradually and continuously reduce the population due to various premature deaths and the numbers of singles.

*two child limit and only within marriage, or alternatively childless bachelorhood.
.
 
Last edited:

John F

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 3, 2013
397
48
I'm not so sure. If we continue to make the world a less and less pleasant place to live, there should eventually come a point where volunteers will step forward. Even today we have campaigns to allow assisted suicide.

But of course the more practical way is to gradually reduce the birthrate, China has showed the way with considerable success. They biased on using the stick and the one child limit was too harsh, but the carrot is already known to be effective. It's common knowledge that the higher the standard of living, the lower the birth rate.

So a combination of making life thoroughly unpleasant except for those who comply with birth restriction policies* who receive a much better living will gradually and continuously reduce the population due to various premature deaths and the numbers of singles.

*two child limit and only within marriage, or alternatively childless bachelorhood.
.
Too right. Unfortunately us in the "advanced countries" are stuck with traditional capitalism i.e. obsessed with "growth" so we can all consume even more stuff that we don't really need. It's only the Green types in this country that see a different, more pleasant future, by adopting a different course.

Have you noticed that politicians never seem to talk about population? (other than slagging off 1 child China)
 

Advertisers