Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
It is basically saying this. Current level is 95, if the EU influx hadn't happened then it would've been 100. Leaving the EU won't automatically mean it will head back all the way to 100. Other factors are in play, but it might end up at 97. One of which that the presence of those already here will limit its recovery. If we stayed in, the 95 would drop FURTHER to 94, 93, ... 90. We can't undo the effect of the previous EU influx, but we can stop it increasing yet further and having a greater detrimental effect. Whichever way you look at it, they are worse off because of the EU, and would be even more worse off if we stayed.
|
More people simply equals more problems which have to be dealt with, including the serious environmental ones which we're told are so critical to the future of the planet.
Take a look at what's happening in large parts of London. More and more people being crammed into smaller and smaller spaces; roads/transport can't cope with the level of demand; local authorities overwhelmed; schools full; A&Es full; nowhere to park; every little space being built upon; multiple occupancy slums etc etc. At what point is the permanent damage to London and all the direct/indirect costs taken into account in the equation by those for whom GDP is the Holy Grail? It's not like what's happening can be reversed if we decide we don't like it after all. How far along the journey to London becoming Lagos are we going to go before someone says STOP?! The lack of foresight evident with regard to the ramifications of population growth is incredible.
It seems to me that if populations, especially from poorer countries, are allowed to move freely in such vast numbers, that's exactly what happens and it does so far more rapidly than the ability of the receiving nation(s) to cope with it all in practical terms as well as socially and economically.