OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Trickytreesreds]

seeing as we have had over a year of this, just for the laughs-


Stolen this because its funny
We're a week on from the result and I have sought out as many young "disillusioned" voters as I could, asking them Many questions. The results will astound you
I asked 28 youngsters
1) Did you vote? 8 said yes, 20 didnt vote
2) Why are you upset? 24 said "our future was stolen from us" and
4 said "Dont know" .......yes DONT KNOW why theyre upset
3) Why do you think your future has been "stolen"?
A) We cant travel through Europe anymore - 10
We have lost our identity (Even though there is no European nationality) - 8
C) We will be hated by Europe - 4
D) My best friend is European - 6
4) Who do you blame for Brexit? The old - all 28
5) What do you class as old?
A) White people with grey hair - 10
Not sure - 5
C) Over 35 (had to prompt for an age) - 13
6) How many presidents are there in the EU? Dont know - 28
7) Name one president. None 26, Tusk 2
8) Why do you think people voted to leave? Racism 25, Small mindedness 3
9) WHat is the capital of Hungary? Dont know - 28
10) Where is the EU Parliament situated? Dont know - 28
So there folks is my very small but poignant poll of the young. Thick as Whale Omelettes, I have concluded that they are upset because they wanted to be comfortably numb in the knowledge they never have to think for themelves

[Ram59]

You're coming round to my way of thinking anag, multiply your figures by 1000 and you get the national picture. Population is increasing by 500,000/600,000 per year, so we need 200,000 homes, at least 150,000 cars on the road, etc, etc.

You cannot drum up the facilities out of thin air. Maybe Corbyn can, on the same allotment which grows his money trees!

[ramAnag]

You're coming round to my way of thinking anag, multiply your figures by 1000 and you get the national picture. Population is increasing by 500,000/600,000 per year, so we need 200,000 homes, at least 150,000 cars on the road, etc, etc.

You cannot drum up the facilities out of thin air. Maybe Corbyn can, on the same allotment which grows his money trees!

Not really Ram59. You blame immigration for the problem and choose only to 'address' that aspect. I recognise that there is an issue but would suggest that though immigration is a contributory factor to a growing population there are others, and our public services might be much stronger if so much of the nation's wealth wasn't in the hands of so few.

[Ram59]

You should read what I say, I have always said that immigration and to a lesser extent EU' immigration is only part of increase in population. What I did say is that, by leaving the eu, we will be able to control that element of immigration, because we have no control over it now.

Also, control over immigration is the only tool we have to slow the population growth in this country.

If you're going to argue with me, at least argue against what I say and not what you think I am 'suggesting'.

[ramAnag]

I do actually read what you say and I do take your point about immigration from the EU.

I'm not sure you're right about control over immigration being the only tool we have to slow population growth down though. We've touched on limiting family size, sensitive issue but if the problem is as great as you suggest it needs to be addressed and we also need a grown up debate about the virtues of ever extending life. At the moment people are living longer but without, necessarily, an attendant quality of life...is there any point, or does that just mean a greater population of aged dependent individuals who are colossally expensive to 'maintain' and have a very limited quality of life? I know these are difficult questions but personally I'd rather have 15 good years left than 25 where the last ten years see me being wholly dependent on people I no longer recognise. Sorry if that offends and I really don't know how you 'legislate' for it.

Finally...you describe 'us' as being the most densely populated EU country - see I do read what you write. Think that depends on whether 'us' is England or the UK. If it's the former you may be right...if it's the latter then I think Holland and Belgium are more densely populated. Of course Monaco is more densely populated than any of them and they don't seem to be doing too badly.

[Ram59]

Again read what I said, ' the most densely populated of the major economic countries in the eu. IE Germany, France, Italy, Spain.

[Ram59]

I do actually read what you say and I do take your point about immigration from the EU.

I'm not sure you're right about control over immigration being the only tool we have to slow population growth down though. We've touched on limiting family size, sensitive issue but if the problem is as great as you suggest it needs to be addressed and we also need a grown up debate about the virtues of ever extending life. At the moment people are living longer but without, necessarily, an attendant quality of life...is there any point, or does that just mean a greater population of aged dependent individuals who are colossally expensive to 'maintain' and have a very limited quality of life? I know these are difficult questions but personally I'd rather have 15 good years left than 25 where the last ten years see me being wholly dependent on people I no longer recognise. Sorry if that offends and I really don't know how you 'legislate' for it.

Finally...you describe 'us' as being the most densely populated EU country - see I do read what you write. Think that depends on whether 'us' is England or the UK. If it's the former you may be right...if it's the latter then I think Holland and Belgium are more densely populated. Of course Monaco is more densely populated than any of them and they don't seem to be doing too badly.

ARe you suggesting that we should bump off all our old people and stop people having too many children, so we can continue to give EU 'citizens free movement in our country?

[ramAnag]

You actually said, 'we are the most densely populated major economy in the EU'. I think the Netherlands constitutes a 'major economy' and it is more densely populated than the UK - though not England - however we run the risk of being pedantic...well you do .

As for, am I 'suggesting that we should bump off all our old people and stop having too many children...'. You know perfectly well I'm not suggesting the former but I am raising the very uncomfortable question of how much point there is in science being able to prolong life without an equivalent quality of life. As regards having 'too many children'...I would question the morality of having children you can't afford to maintain without intervention from the taxpayer.

I'm surprised you don't agree, with the latter point at least. You've accepted that increased longevity and the temporary 'baby boom' are at least as responsible for the growth in population as immigration but you only want to do something about immigrants. Apart from the fact that it is less complex and easier, why is that?

[Ram59]

You actually said, 'we are the most densely populated major economy in the EU'. I think the Netherlands constitutes a 'major economy' and it is more densely populated than the UK - though not England - however we run the risk of being pedantic...well you do .

As for, am I 'suggesting that we should bump off all our old people and stop having too many children...'. You know perfectly well I'm not suggesting the former but I am raising the very uncomfortable question of how much point there is in science being able to prolong life without an equivalent quality of life. As regards having 'too many children'...I would question the morality of having children you can't afford to maintain without intervention from the taxpayer.

I'm surprised you don't agree, with the latter point at least. You've accepted that increased longevity and the temporary 'baby boom' are at least as responsible for the growth in population as immigration but you only want to do something about immigrants. Apart from the fact that it is less complex and easier, why is that?

So, by your definition, a baby born handicapped in some way with the prospect of a poor quality of life and which the parents couldn't afford to look after, should be put down at birth. Sounds like the Nazies!

BTW, yes, I have nothing against the immigrants, but controlling immigration is the easiest and most comfortable way of slowing population growth. Otherwise, my grandchildren will see the UK have a population of around 130 million.

[ramAnag]

So, by your definition, a baby born handicapped in some way with the prospect of a poor quality of life and which the parents couldn't afford to look after, should be put down at birth. Sounds like the Nazies!

BTW, yes, I have nothing against the immigrants, but controlling immigration is the easiest and most comfortable way of slowing population growth. Otherwise, my grandchildren will see the UK have a population of around 130 million.

I think that first paragraph is probably the stupidest conclusion I have ever seen reached on this forum...and if you're going to accuse me of being a 'nazi' then at least learn to spell it.

I disagree with your views on immigration but I have tried to respect them...I have made absolutely no comment whatsoever about 'handicapped' children and your quite deliberate misinterpretation of the points I have raised says much more about you than me. I thought we were two people having an adult debate from different standpoints. If you can't manage that without recourse to unfounded name calling then there's clearly no point in continuing.