The same reason Briton has the 5th largest economy in the world but other countries don't.

"LOL if we can do it so can you!"

What a fucking idiotic argument. I've already stated why my little village can't succeed in such an expansion. And the government can't do a thing about it when people CHOOSE to come to my city. It's called FREE MOVEMENT not we'll put you where it suits us movement.

My god you are an angry person.

What you describe has nothing to do with free movement. For a person to move into a home in city X, city X needs to have a home available. If that's not the case, city X can't be moved into.

If there's an influx of people that requires additional homes, your government needs to work on a plan that provides these homes in locations that can support them.

I'm not saying that this is easy or that it's a simple matter of building these homes and being done with it. However, it is something that a government is responsible for. If you say your country can't take these immigrants, then it's only a matter of time before your country won't be able to take its own offspring anymore. And at 250 inhabitants per square kilometer, you are still at a much lower density than several countries who manage to scale their infrastructures perfectly.

This post was edited by howtodisappearcompletely on Jun 23 2016 07:02am

what will happen when scotland votes for independence in the next referendum (which is sure to come soon if gb leaves the eu)?

Why do people in the stay camp hate poor people and want to punish them by bringing in loads of unskilled workers so that they're forced further into government assistance via the massive deficit of low skill jobs?

....

You can't stop people going to a certain city, whether there are homes for them or not. That's why you get 3 or more families sharing 3 bedroom houses, that's why you get 4 or 5 single people sharing a 1 bedroom flat. The government is responsible for finding these people houses, which is what they are doing, which is why problems are forming.

You think anyone in London gives 2 shits about what happens to a small village in Leicester? They won't, ever. And there is nothing I can do to make them. So I vote out because it's the choice I've been given that can potentially bring about the changes I want.

My journey time to and from work is increased by 10minutes each way. That's £60,000 worth of man hours from now until I retire, that is steadily getting worse, and you wonder why I'm angry?

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/plans-build-5-000-homes-met-anger/story-12078421-detail/story.html

That's the story about when the houses were first announced. Debating and arguing was danced around for years before finally being told "shut up and deal with it". We protested to the councils, to the government's officials, we ran campaigns through the village, we spread the word as far as we could.

In the end it was for nothing. So please tell me what my choices are to try and protect a place I've lived in my entire life?

... Wow.

The way you describe it, even Poland handles its population growth better than the UK does.

As I said, if it weren't for immigrants, you'd be running into all of those issues sooner or later because of your natural population growth.

How far do you live from your work, and how long does that take with & without rush hour traffic? Ten minutes of added time sounds like paradise to me.



It's a democracy, what do you think your choices are?

I understand your sentiment, but running away from your problems (i.e. exiting the EU so that your population will grow more slowly) should never be picked over solving your problems (i.e. electing people who will fix your messed up policies).

This post was edited by howtodisappearcompletely on Jun 23 2016 07:29am

Because with a death rate of 9.34/1000 that's a net gain of 200,000 per year so 300,000 additional people is well over double. Why should countries be taking 300,000 per year ? That seems ridiculously excessive. Is this a permanent commitment or a temporary measure to deal with curent crisis in Syria?

Yes, but the issues would be progressive and not explosive like they are now.

And it takes me about 20minutes to get to work no traffic, lately around 30-35 with busy roads.

received, good luck



I agree that immigration is a problem and we as a small, densely populated island cannot cope with the current levels of migration long term.

However, leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Any free trade agreement crafted with the EU would have to allow the free movement of people, it is a founding principle of the EU, along with the free movement of goods, services and capital. Look at Norway and Switzerland, they are outside the EU but have uncontrolled EU immigration, it is unavoidable either way. All we can do is reduce the incentive through benefits, which we did do during the renegotiation. We could also build more houses, which is a domestic problem unaffiliated with the EU, and a result of incompetent governments that only look ahead a few years.

Migration coming from outside the EU is not controlled by EU laws, so why is that at a similar level to EU migration to the UK? If we could control our borders outside the EU so effectively, you'd think lawmakers would have done that with immigrants from the middle east, africa and asia first...



Norway is in the EEA which means they have agreed to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. They are acting under EU regulations.





I disagree, there is a physical limit to infrastructure and service provision. It's constrained to the wealth of the nation and the resources (including land), which we are not in excess supply of. I'm in the remain camp but I am worried about the future of the NHS, and the housing market in particular.



I hate not having the sovereignty to regulate what has to be included on food labels too! fuk da EU!!11!!!