Turns out that Theresa May not such a reluctant remainer after all. In a recording of a meeting with bankers on 26 May this year she told them that Britain would be better off economically and in terms of security by staying in the EU.
Interesting. Presumably the German planners have provided a decent infrastructure to cope with it. Overall, however, England has a population density almost twice that of Germany.
But she wouldn't actually campaign for Remain because it might damage her chances of becoming PM. Self-serving scumbag. I heard an interview with Nick Clegg a few weeks ago and he was asked what kind of PM he thought she would make. He said it was hard to say, because he never heard her speak on anything outside her own Home Secretarial brief at Cabinet meetings.
Her reputation is entirely founded on speaking bluntly at a Police Federation conference a few years ago. If you look at the track record in what she was responsible for for six years - immigration, border control, law enforcement, prisons - it's a struggle to find anything positive of substance. I suppose she could claim not having any French scale terrorist atrocities. But she has been found to be a world class practitioner of not answering direct questions, so that's something to be proud of, presumably sits well with her 'quiet Christian' morality. I find myself disliking her much more than I ever disliked Cameron, even though the pile of **** we are in is nearly entirely his fault. Still, better than Leadsom or Johnson, to whom Heathrow expansion is no longer a big issue, surprisingly. I don't expect to see a third runway at Heathrow in the next 20 years. Much easier to expand Gatwick and Birmingham. Having seen a plan of where they think they will be putting it, seems even more unlikely. And it won't be enough. De Gaulle and Frankfurt have 4 runways, Schipol 6. Just one more will cost an estimated £17.6bn (and with the art of estimation, we should double this). In the meantime a new six runway airport in Istanbul will open in 2018, costing £9bn. Even the total cock up which has been the new Berlin airport will only cost €9bn when it eventually opens.
Interestingly enough Goldie the infrastucture of Germany is nothing like as good as people think it is. Everything which is not directly connected to exports is rather under developed - their public transport system became very run down in the past in order to get people to buy more cars. Internet connections are amongst the slowest in Europe, the school system is rated as being elitist, hierarchical, and in terms of end product, average in European terms. Add to this that a quarter of all workers in Germany earn less than the French minimum wage then you have a picture of Germany which does not fit with the 'official' image. As regards population density - this has gone down as a result of the unification with the ex GDR. and the vast majority of immigrants would rather go to the more highly populated west - concentrating on NRW. the Hamburg area, Stuttgart, Munich etc. The highest numbers of immigrants in relation to population are in Duisburg, Stuttgart and Cologne (would you risk Dresden or Leipzig ?) - but this happens everywhere, because you can't tell people where to go to. So, once admitted to a country, then they will accumulate in some areas more than others, and the South East of England is not unique in this.
There was a piece in The Sunday Times this week about Lithuania and their decreasing population, down 12% or thereabouts since being admitted to the EU. Employers can not get locals to do the work so have to go to immigration centers to find employees, they are suffering a brain drain as university educated 20 somethings are emigrating as pay is greater in the UK rest of Europe than at home........there is/has been a huge shift in populations within Europe with movement from the less well off former Eastern Bloc countries to the perceived wealthier western European that will not change anytime soon, meanwhile Europe also has to accommodate those moving from countries where there's conflict or simply economic migrants. Expect it to get worse before it gets better. Meanwhile I see Zac Goldsmith has stood on his principles re Heathrow and resigned forcing a By-Election in Richmond, fair play to him, but I doubt we'll ever see the 3rd runway built, especially as 2 whole villages will be demolished in the process and this will be tied up in the appeals process for donkey's years, the only winners will be the lawyers.......cynic? moi?
I read that too, interesting stuff. Though some, like Slovakia and the Czech Republic, have grown. Eventually the old Eastern bloc countries will catch up economically (or just as likely, the rich ones will Level down) and the push/pull to migrate will be lower, within Europe at least. Poland doing well in this regard. Doesn't help with migrants/ refugees from further away or in the short term of course. Tories not putting up a candidate against Goldsmith, making him the surrogate Tory in the race. If the Lib Dems are against the third runway they could win this, the constituency was 70% stay in the referendum, and Goldsmith is a Brexiter, like his horrible father.
Just a thought, peeps. "Population density" is just a snappy headline slogan. Although it is a true fact, it's meaningless in the context of the debate on immigration. It's the available infrastructure that matters, not how densely packed we are as a country. So, we could be twice as densely packed as we are now - with home grown Brits, obv. - but density wouldn't matter if we had enough hospitals, schools and the rest of the infrastructure we need for them. We don't. We need more infrastructure plus the trained people to operate it. Population density isn't the issue in this case at the moment if we just have a quiet think about it.
You're right, Cologne, you can't tell immigrants where to settle. Scotland constantly demands more, but few want to go up there. I'm not saying the the SE of England is unique, but coupled with the high population in England and the current high rate of immigration, resources are stretched acutely. Numbers coming in and the controls in place will play an increasing important part in forthcoming political elections in Europe - France is particularly exposed, I sense. However, I'm hearing Mrs Merkel will probably be able to resist efforts to unseat her.
And abandon the green belt? There are big environmental issues involved, as well as the nation's health and welfare. I cannot understand why we would want to be twice as densely populated, unless it's to rehouse a large part of the Middle East. Where's the benefit?
Interesting that you mention Slovakia and Poland Stan. A couple of examples of that, a young Slovakian couple (mid 20's) when they came to Ireland 8 or 9 years ago worked for a company that I work for. They returned home about 4 years ago due to family commitments but each summer they return here for 3 months to work for the same company (summer is peak trading season) only earning €10 an hour but work all the overtime they can so that in September they return to Slovakia with enough money to see them through the next 6 months. Another young Polish couple came to Ireland when Poland joined EU stayed for 10 years or so before returning to Poland. The lass still works for the Irish business she worked for over here, just has an office and computer in her home town, she enjoys the freedom it gives her and she is well paid by Polish standards. These days you can have a workforce anywhere as long as you have internet connection.
Unless you are picking fruit or serving coffee.......would indicate that the 'professional' roles should be easier to deal with than the more manual ones.
Huh? Where did that come from? Who wants to build on the Green Belt? Who wants to rehouse a large part of the Middle East? Who is suggesting we would want to be twice as densely populated? As has already been posted, there are other countries which have higher population densities than we do and yet do not suffer for lack of infrastructure. Those places have the political will to cater for their population in a way that we, for some unexplained reason, do not seem to want to match. Population density, per se, is not the issue. Political will is the issue.
"We could be twice as densely packed as we are now... but density wouldn't matter" Your words, so I assumed you were either in favour or indifferent to this country being twice as densely populated.
I think he qualifies to comment on what went on in Cabinet meetings when he was Deputy Prime Minister lads.
Selective and misleading. The complete sentence was... "So, we could be twice as densely packed as we are now - with home grown Brits, obv. - but density wouldn't matter if we had enough hospitals, schools and the rest of the infrastructure we need for them." ... and in support of my point that density wasn't the problem, but lack of infrastructure for whatever density we have was. Meaning that to just quote "population density" as a reason for doing anything (or not) isn't telling the whole story, just sloganeering. It will satisfy some people, of course, which is why politicians do it. For the record, I don't want to build on Green Belt land and I don't want to rehouse the Middle East either.
