A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing

that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,

united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote

a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to

cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism

can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been.

I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of

an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging

and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete

with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become

unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become

necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this,

I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other

functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

Surely the UK provides an example of how a group of nations can retain their individual identities whilst being part of a larger grouping - there are still national football teams, national anthems (though England have not really pinned one down yet) and a strong sense of national pride, particularly in Scotland and N Ireland.

Are the English encouraged to have a sense of national pride? I think not,we even have cases of some left wing councils prohibiting the flying of the Union Jack from town halls. Compare this with the USA where many people even fly their flag in their gardens,or here in Thailand, where you can see the Thai flag on every soi.

So what has this to do with Brexit? Could it be that some Brits, now have no confidence in their own country,especially after being fed a diet of EU bullshit for the last 40yrs. To even speak up for our own country tempts some people to accuse them of being racist or bigots, as in the case of Ex prime minister Gordon Brown when confronted by the concerns of Gillion Duffy.

I think national pride is fostered gradually by various things. and its human nature to want to be part of 'the tribe'.

I understand this, and still (generally and vaguely) support England/Britain when they are competing against other countries. However....flying flags outside houses as proof of their patriotism, frightens me a little as it makes me wonder how easy it would be to turn this into something horrendous. Its happened all too often, which is why it bothers me. Most think its good to be patriotic etc., but history shows how easily this can be turned into something far more sinister.

As a Brit., I have to agree that I have had no confidence in the Brit. govts. for many years - but it has nothing to do with "EU bullshit"! Brit. govts. have made it v clear that they are only interested in looking out for themselves and the super-wealthy. They are either already part of the wealthy elite, or will do their best to become part of that elite by protecting their interests - thereby gaining Board member positions/consultant positions etc. etc.

I received postal confirmation of electoral registration this a.m. - so its time to vote, and hope that if Brexit wins the day it will lead to major reform in both the Brit. and EU govts. On the other hand, it could lead to an even more aggressively capitalistic Brit. govt. .

Impossible to know and its tempting to not vote at all for the same reason as (I suspect) many others - easier to accept the status quo than risk uncertainty.

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing

that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,

united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote

a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to

cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism

can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been.

I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of

an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging

and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete

with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become

unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become

necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this,

I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other

functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

Surely the UK provides an example of how a group of nations can retain their individual identities whilst being part of a larger grouping - there are still national football teams, national anthems (though England have not really pinned one down yet) and a strong sense of national pride, particularly in Scotland and N Ireland.

You are absolutely correct in what you say. However, I do not think you can equate the uniqueness of the model which obtains in the United Kingdom with

the current situation in the European Union. Not to forget too, that the United Kingdom comprises just 4 nations as opposed to the 28 (and continually

growing) nations of the European Union. There was also the benefit of an (essentially) common language in the British case.

The United Kingdom was formed and evolved over a much longer period of time, including some tumultuous situations and set-backs, when there was far

less pressure on the pace of events than the imperatives which face the EU in the present day. The European Union, in my view, just simply doesn't have

enough time to create the kind of homogeneity that is required of it.

If one wants more of the same vote remain

If one wants change vote exit, IMO no change will come via remain

To do neither shows apathy.

Brexit.....now do I get filled with infinite wisdom?

I doubt it! I was just checking a theory that Brexiteers are all heavily dosed in nostalgia and conscription would be a typical part of that.

Having said that I'm in the Remain camp and would recommend conscription so maybe my theory isn't that water tight.

I am Brexiteer also but I am against conscription for the military. I would be for some form of civil type of conscription work though.

If one wants more of the same vote remain

If one wants change vote exit, IMO no change will come via remain

To do neither shows apathy.

I vehemently disagree that not voting shows apathy. IMO it shows a fear of uncertainty - and most (who have no obvious financial 'dog in the fight') prefer the devil they know rather than risking the unknown.

I strongly agree with the first two lines of your post though - hence the 'like'.

Brexit.....now do I get filled with infinite wisdom?

I doubt it! I was just checking a theory that Brexiteers are all heavily dosed in nostalgia and conscription would be a typical part of that.

Having said that I'm in the Remain camp and would recommend conscription so maybe my theory isn't that water tight.

I am Brexiteer also but I am against conscription for the military. I would be for some form of civil type of conscription work though.

Entirely off topic obviously, but I agree as I thought about conscription (a long time ago when thugs became common-place, bullying their communities) and realised that I'd be in a lot of trouble as just accepting ridiculous commands is not in my nature.

Even more off topic , I'd be in favour of bringing back the 'stocks' for the youngsters that are a social problem. At the moment, their peers are generally impressed/frightened by their thuggish behaviour. This would quickly change if they were put in stocks and so became an object of laughter.

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing

that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,

united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote

a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to

cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism

can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been.

I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of

an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging

and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete

with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become

unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become

necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this,

I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other

functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

Surely the UK provides an example of how a group of nations can retain their individual identities whilst being part of a larger grouping - there are still national football teams, national anthems (though England have not really pinned one down yet) and a strong sense of national pride, particularly in Scotland and N Ireland.

You are absolutely correct in what you say. However, I do not think you can equate the uniqueness of the model which obtains in the United Kingdom with the current situation in the European Union. Not to forget too, that the United Kingdom comprises just 4 nations as opposed to the 28 (and continually growing) nations of the European Union. There was also the benefit of an (essentially) common language in the British case.

The United Kingdom was formed and evolved over a much longer period of time, including some tumultuous situations and set-backs, when there was far less pressure on the pace of events than the imperatives which face the EU in the present day. The European Union, in my view, just simply doesn't have enough time to create the kind of homogeneity that is required of it.

Indeed these are different times but it is worth remembering that key to the establishment of the United Kingdom was effectively handing over our sovereignty to europeans with the invasion of William III (all be it at the request of the English lords at the time) and a few years later George I from Germany who could barely speak english.

Uncertain investors withdraw billions from Europe

Some US investors are looking at the Europe and thinking its a basket case

A lot of investors have cut exposure to Europe during the year. There are political concerns, political risks in Spain and Portugal and weakening data.

Investors are leaving because they are tired of low growth

Poor economic figures that suggest a eurozone recession is a possibility on top of rising brexit fears

More reason to leave

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk whilst drinking a cold beer

Indeed these are different times but it is worth remembering that key to the establishment of the United Kingdom was effectively handing over our sovereignty to europeans with the invasion of William III (all be it at the request of the English lords at the time) and a few years later George I from Germany who could barely speak english.

Sovereignty in total was definitely not handed-over to "Europeans" but specific individuals who were of continental European nationality (and very closely related, albeit by marriage in the case of William III, to the British Royal family at the time) were invited to play a part in British governance.

Both kings took the throne at the request of Parliament - after a previous king, James II, had been deposed by Parliament, in the case of William - and became part of the British system.

Neither of them said "OK, boys, I'm King - we'll run Britain on Dutch/German lines now and I'll live permanently in Netherlands/Hanover and control things from there".

Neither was an absolute monarch either but were part of the Parliamentary system already established in Britain in which Parliament was supreme, pretty much as Queen Elizabeth II is today.

As they had previously demonstrated, Parliament could remove the monarch if it wished. That's something that can't be done with the EU Commission by today's British Parliament or voters.

Indeed these are different times but it is worth remembering that key to the establishment of the United Kingdom was effectively handing over our sovereignty to europeans with the invasion of William III (all be it at the request of the English lords at the time) and a few years later George I from Germany who could barely speak english.

Sovereignty was definitely not handed-over to "Europeans" but to specific individuals who were of continental European nationality and very closely related, albeit by marriage in the case of William III, to the British Royal family at the time.

Both kings took the throne at the request of Parliament - after a previous king, James II, had been deposed by Parliament, in the case of William - and became part of the British system.

Neither of them said "OK, boys, I'm King - we'll run Britain on Dutch/German lines now and I'll live permanently in Netherlands/Hanover and control things from there".

Neither was an absolute monarch either but were part of the Parliamentary system already established in Britain in which Parliament was supreme, pretty much as Queen Elizabeth II is today.

As they had previously demonstrated, Parliament could remove the monarch if it wished. That's something that can't be done with the EU Commission by today's British Parliament or voters.

An excellent post.

To suggest that inviting William III and George of Hanover to sit on the throne as an early exemplar for what is now the European Union is a little bit of historical revisionism in my view. Because Britain was at an fledgling stage of a Constitutional Monarchy, continuity of the Crown was particularly important, and the country had to go abroad in order for it to continue in the manner which had been previously established. This was by no means a "handing over of British sovereignty" in the sense that we would mean it today, and particularly with the rights which have been given up to the EU, and which will continue to be given up going forward (despite what David Cameron says), unless there is Brexit.

If there was any "key" to the ultimate establishment of the United Kingdom, then I would argue that it was in the person of Oliver Cromwell who set it on track.

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,

united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been. I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this, I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

I recall reading - a while ago - that there will be no 'England' football team in the future, no Scots or Welsh teams either. We will have a 'Euro' team. A bit like the U.S.A. or Russia having their own teams. This has, apparently, been decided by the E.U. already but they are waiting to see what happens with the vote.

There were exercises recently in the U.K. of the E.U. 'army' that the E.U. want in place of a British army. It was on a small scale but obviously seems to be the way forward for the E.U.

The E.U. want a European police force too from what I have read.

Then there was the articles about England, Wales and Scotland becoming 'zones' in the E.U. with their own Czar(s). This would be further into the future as I recall.

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing

that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal, united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been.

I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become

unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this, I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

I recall reading - a while ago - that there will be no 'England' football team in the future, no Scots or Welsh teams either. We will have a 'Euro' team. A bit like the U.S.A. or Russia having their own teams. This has, apparently, been decided by the E.U. already but they are waiting to see what happens with the vote.

There were exercises recently in the U.K. of the E.U. 'army' that the E.U. want in place of a British army. It was on a small scale but obviously seems to be the way forward for the E.U.

The E.U. want a European police force too from what I have read.

Then there was the articles about England, Wales and Scotland becoming 'zones' in the E.U. with their own Czar(s). This would be further into the future as I recall.

Extremely interesting reading. I am not all surprised if these things are on the European Union's drawing board. I think we all have a pretty good idea, now, of how the EU Commissioners think, and what their "Grand Design" is, going forward. And where will it end? Will the United Kingdom eventually and ultimately just become a "province" of the European Union?

Do you recall what the source of the article you read, was?

We are talking about immigrants, their religion is irrelevant, unless you just want to bash Muslims, in which case I'm out.

I'll take your figures of 60k/3 mill. as a given for the purposes of this exchange, perhaps somebody with a sharper math skill than mine could extrapolate 60k over 55 years on the basis of family growth, my guess is that growth rate is not unreasonable, mathematically - man takes wife has child, who grows up marries and has child etc., it's a bit like the grain of rice on the first square of the chess board which is doubled with every subsequent square, the total number of grains equals 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, much higher than what most intuitively expect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

So whose fault was it was the question: governments back in the early post years for importing immigrant labour to support the wool/cotton industries; governments for alowing them to stay; the immigrants fault for being natural and having families or the population for not voting effective government to deal with a specific problem.

And why have the two groups not integrated? It couldn't possibly be anything to do with locals being insular and having never travelled more than 100 miles from their homes whilst the immigrants have travelled several thousands of miles to a new world, shades of immigrants to the US there I think. And actually, I moved from Batley to London for work in 1968 and the reception of a northern lad with a Yorkshire accent, by southern folk, was probably not that different from the one received by immigrants in the north at that time - did I mention insularity of the UK population before!

And if today there are indeed influential migrants in the UK who do not want to integrate, (remember we are talking about immigrants and not any religious faction), who can blame them, given the way many of them were treated by the indigenous population back in the 1960's and onwards and I have witnessed that widespread mistreatment first hand over many years, shocking and appalling treatment.

So what does all the above have to do with Brexit and the EU readers are asking themselves - nothing at all is the simple answer, the immigration issue in the UK is not of the EU's making, it was made by the British government and the British people who voted (or failed to) in successive governments. But hey, blame it on the EU, why not, Brexit wont change that issue however!


.

So if I get this right you left Batley in 1968 when it had a very small immigrant
Population,for the next decade or two you lived in London and overseas,before returning to live in Cameron's constituency ( as previously mentioned, no economic migrants have been settled there) before moving here to Thailand. During these nearly 50 yrs, many changes have occurred in Batley, no more so than the make up of the population,who unfortunately have not integrated. So would I be correct that really you don't know what's occurred there in this time, and as far as your concerned "I'm all right Jack".


P.s I also left Yorkshire originally in the 1960's lived in the south with people from all around the UK and Southern Ireland, Never felt any prejudices against this Yorkshire lad. So what did you do, to upset the Londoners, I can only guess.

Not really! I returned from the US in 1985 and went to work for the Big 6 where my second assignment was secondment to a financial institution headquartered in Bradford, I would stay there full time for the next six months which gave me an opportunity to visit places of my youth. Interestingly, six months prior I'd been a resident of Miami Beach where I also worked and the similarities between the two location were similar in some respects. Miami has a substantial Hispanic population which dominates many areas, shops restaurants and businesses in both locations were majority ethnically owned and run police and community services are staffed with ethnic residents and signs that read se habla español are everywhere - ditto in Bradford except the signs are in Urdu. Personally I didn't have a problem with either location, things seemed to work well in both places. As for your, "I'm all right Jack" comment, presumably that refers to the lack of immigrants in Chipping Norton? That being so I can easily understand why, simply, the places is beyond dull and there's no work to be had other than shop keeping and in this respect the immigrant community has control of most of the convenience stores in both Chippy. Burford and Charlbury and beyond.

Finally, it would be unfair I suppose to refer to southerners showing prejudice towards this northern lad when I moved to London but there was much mickey taking of accents and place of birth, diet etc. and differences were quickly identified. In business, in our offices in The City, white anglo saxon and an Oxbridge degree was derigeur, not a single immigrant to be seen for miles, fortunately that has now changed for the better, it just takes time.

So after living in Bradford for Six Months in 1985, you've come to the conclusion that the UK and certainly some areas do not have a problem with immigrants, especially those who have NO intension of integrating. You even blame in your post 1275, the indigenous people for the failure of these same people to integrate. Well I've got news for you, it does have a problem,one that is increasing each yr. Who says so, your own M.P Cameron, that is why he promised to reduce immigration to less than 100,000 a year. A pledge that he has failed miserable, with immigration now at a yearly figure of 330,000.
Yet with these facts in front of you, you still intend to vote for remaining in the corrupt E.U. thus allowing even more and more economic migrants to enter the UK, whether they have, or have not,the skills that are in demand or even required in the U.K. As the saying goes " there are none so blind as those who will not see".

You manage continually to extract assumptions from my posts that are not based on anything I wrote! I answered the questions you raised regarding my whereabouts in which year but that is by no means the full extent of my exposure to parts of the UK that have immigrant problems, neither did I conclude that immigration is not a problem anywhere in the UK!

Indeed the country could prevent all immigrants from entering but apart from the legal problems that approach would generate, the impact on the economy would be dire. In fact the UK does not have sufficient working age people with the correct skills and work ethos available to it hence immigration is an essential cure to that problem - (read what I wrote carefully before you tell me there are x hundred thousand unemployed Brits available to the labour market).

But let's say that immigration could be stopped overnight or even reduced to below 100k, there would be insufficient labour available to industry hence the only alternative is to shrink the economy, let GDP fall and along with it the value of UK assets and income, people simply wouldn't stand for it and the government would fall overnight, leaving UK plc with some stark choices.

And yes, I still stand behind what I wrote earlier, much of the immigration situation today is legacy, based on events that happened fifty years ago, Brits not voting, the populations sour attitude to essential immigrants in the work force, the failure to integrate (if indeed that is mainstream and not just a series of anomalies) is rooted at least in part in our early treatment of those immigrants, reap what you sow springs to mind. BTW I see you glossed over the accounting of your 60k to 3 million stats., convenient that!

It would be a good thing,and I think acceptable if Immigration was far more tightly controlled, with preference given to those with historic links to the UK, plus their wives/ husbands and children. Then there would be visa's granted to those who showed they had a skill, that could be shown to be of benefit to the UK.
Yes there are hundreds of thousand of unemployed Brits who could take up some of these jobs, if it was not for the incentives offered by government handouts. I don't know if you are aware Chang Mie, but when you left Batley in 1968 the unemployment figure for the UK was approximately 600,O00 of whom 50 % were unemployable ( mental health problems etc ) today the unemployment figure is 1,700,000 admittedly from a larger population, however in the intervening years the Thatcher/ Major governments very cleverly transferred many unemployed off the unemployment list onto incapacity benefits, thus lowering the unemployment rate dramatically.

I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy.

Do you not think it's very irresponsible for today's voters to burden future generations not only with a crippling national debt,but also social disorder that may possible occur when the numbers of Muslims tops 50% of the U.K. Population, as is predicted by some to occur by 2050. Personally as a atheist I don't give a dam if someone is a Muslim,Christian or a person who visits Salisbury plain every year to celebrate solstice. However I do think it's irresponsible and selfish for present day voters to hand down to future generations these problems, which will occur when a significant section of the population REFUSES to integrate.

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing
that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,
united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote
a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to
cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism
can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been.
I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of
an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging
and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete
with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become
unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become
necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this,
I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other
functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.
.
Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

I recall reading - a while ago - that there will be no 'England' football team in the future, no Scots or Welsh teams either. We will have a 'Euro' team. A bit like the U.S.A. or Russia having their own teams. This has, apparently, been decided by the E.U. already but they are waiting to see what happens with the vote.

There were exercises recently in the U.K. of the E.U. 'army' that the E.U. want in place of a British army. It was on a small scale but obviously seems to be the way forward for the E.U.

The E.U. want a European police force too from what I have read.

Then there was the articles about England, Wales and Scotland becoming 'zones' in the E.U. with their own Czar(s). This would be further into the future as I recall.


[/quote

I hope that was good old British sarcasm.

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,

united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been. I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this, I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

I recall reading - a while ago - that there will be no 'England' football team in the future, no Scots or Welsh teams either. We will have a 'Euro' team. A bit like the U.S.A. or Russia having their own teams. This has, apparently, been decided by the E.U. already but they are waiting to see what happens with the vote.

There were exercises recently in the U.K. of the E.U. 'army' that the E.U. want in place of a British army. It was on a small scale but obviously seems to be the way forward for the E.U.

The E.U. want a European police force too from what I have read.

Then there was the articles about England, Wales and Scotland becoming 'zones' in the E.U. with their own Czar(s). This would be further into the future as I recall.

complete nonsense - check your sources!

A previous poster used the term “inclusiveness” as an ideal for the citizens of the EU, believing that the umbrella of the EU would “magically” (my word) have them all pulling together towards a common goal,

united in a single purpose. How to achieve this “Utopian” state? There are no mechanisms, as yet, in place to promote a “European” patriotism. It remains a disparate and polyglot and economically unequal grouping which the EU is trying to cobble together as an “entity”. It is my belief that the EU will have largely disintegrated long before deep feelings of patriotism can be instilled or inculcated in the population, but that’s another story altogether.

I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic, although not "jingoistic" as previous generations had been. I was proud of my country and my citizenship of it. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, although DD finds it something of an embarrassment. Perhaps it is an anachronism in this day and age? I don’t know. I would need to be persuaded.

However, I am quite certain that without some overarching program in place within the EU to create feelings of pride, belonging and, yes, patriotism in its structure, its denizens are unlikely to ever be able to coalesce into some meaningful body able to compete with the other major political and economic structures in the world at large. And they will possibly, further down the line, also become unleadable and ungovernable because of it. Watch out for a strongman to emerge as a force for leadership in this scenario!

How to do away with individual emotional National Anthems, National sporting teams, and National Pride? It will absolutely become necessary if “Europe” is ever to work. This is not some Orwellian fantasy, by the way. The EU Commissioners will have recognized this, I am sure, and will be putting plans in place, no doubt getting ready to create a separate department and appoint a czar, mandarin or other functionary to oversee the process to its conclusion.

.

Is this what the British really want to ally themselves with? Surely not?

I recall reading - a while ago - that there will be no 'England' football team in the future, no Scots or Welsh teams either. We will have a 'Euro' team. A bit like the U.S.A. or Russia having their own teams. This has, apparently, been decided by the E.U. already but they are waiting to see what happens with the vote.

There were exercises recently in the U.K. of the E.U. 'army' that the E.U. want in place of a British army. It was on a small scale but obviously seems to be the way forward for the E.U.

The E.U. want a European police force too from what I have read.

Then there was the articles about England, Wales and Scotland becoming 'zones' in the E.U. with their own Czar(s). This would be further into the future as I recall.

complete nonsense - check your sources!

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

What you miss from your calculation is that the original number of 50,000 is not static, it keeps getting added to each year by some percentage o new immigrants, 5% or 10% wouldn't be a bad number. As a result the calculation has to be performed again each year on the additional 5% and added to the total and that is not an insignificant amount, after seven years it represents an increase of 50% over the starting volume. On that basis, 3 million is easily achievable, even allowing for deaths.

It would be a good thing,and I think acceptable if Immigration was far more tightly controlled, with preference given to those with historic links to the UK, plus their wives/ husbands and children. Then there would be visa's granted to those who showed they had a skill, that could be shown to be of benefit to the UK.

Yes there are hundreds of thousand of unemployed Brits who could take up some of these jobs, if it was not for the incentives offered by government handouts. I don't know if you are aware Chang Mie, but when you left Batley in 1968 the unemployment figure for the UK was approximately 600,O00 of whom 50 % were unemployable ( mental health problems etc ) today the unemployment figure is 1,700,000 admittedly from a larger population, however in the intervening years the Thatcher/ Major governments very cleverly transferred many unemployed off the unemployment list onto incapacity benefits, thus lowering the unemployment rate dramatically.

I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy.

Do you not think it's very irresponsible for today's voters to burden future generations not only with a crippling national debt,but also social disorder that may possible occur when the numbers of Muslims tops 50% of the U.K. Population, as is predicted by some to occur by 2050. Personally as a atheist I don't give a dam if someone is a Muslim,Christian or a person who visits Salisbury plain every year to celebrate solstice. However I do think it's irresponsible and selfish for present day voters to hand down to future generations these problems, which will occur when a significant section of the population REFUSES to integrate.

I totally agree with your first two para's., totally.

I agree with most of your final para. and yes I also agree it is irresponsible. I can't agree with your stats. of 50% because I don't know the source and can't understand the numbers, neither do I necessarily agree that all would be Muslims versus immigrants from other religions.

But as an over riding principle we can easily agree that things in the UK can be much improved and you've set out some of those things, I just do not believe however that leaving the EU will help solve those things in a meaningful way, not without further damaging the country.

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

What you miss from your calculation is that the original number of 50,000 is not static, it keeps getting added to each year by some percentage o new immigrants, 5% or 10% wouldn't be a bad number. As a result the calculation has to be performed again each year on the additional 5% and added to the total and that is not an insignificant amount, after seven years it represents an increase of 50% over the starting volume. On that basis, 3 million is easily achievable, even allowing for deaths.

It's a factor,take note that the Muslims at present make up about 5% of the total population, however if you take a look at the numbers for just children,the figure increase to 10%. Yet even after taking these figures into consideration it is still undeniable that rampant unrestricted immigration is also a very important factor,and that is what will continue to happen while the UK remains in the EU. To vote to remain in this corrupt so called Union is comparable to turkeys voting for Xmas.

The Brexit movie is thin watery gruel indeed

It genuinely depresses me that so many of you fall for such cheap propaganda

Answer me this: why is it that nobody of stature has stood up and supported Brexit? Not one.

Exactly, quite well made piece of propaganda.

Jeremy Paxman did something similar a couple of nights ago but he included people from both sides. He talked to Jonathan Hill, selected by the UK government to represent the UK in the EU commission. He also talked to several MEPs, which have been elected by the UK public, a few from each side of the fence. Each had fairly plausible reasons for their point of view.

Do you have a link to the Paxman debate/interview? I'd be interested to see it.

You would need to look on BBC Iplayer, it was aired one evening towards the end of last week. Probably still available on Expat TV if you have it.

"The former mayor of London, a key figure in the Vote Leave campaign, wrote in his Daily Telegraph column in October 2014 that TTIP – a deal being negotiated by the EU commission with Washington – was a “great project”. He said: “It is Churchillian in that it builds transatlantic links, it is all about free trade, and it brings Britain and Europe closer to America. The idea is to create a gigantic free-trade zone between the EU and the US … There is absolutely nothing not to like about the TTIP. "

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/14/boris-johnson-accused-of-dishonest-gymnastics-over-ttip-u-turn

Never been convinced by B.J. At that time everything was conducted very secretly in regards TTIP, all information coming from leaked documents and freedom of information requests,so just maybe even he was unaware of the full implications of TTIP.

So let's look at a few things that come with TTIP.

One of the aims of TTIP is to open up European public health,education and water servises to giant US corporations. This will lead to the demise of the NHS.

Food and environmental safety, the idea is to bring EU regulations in line with those in the U.S. Unfortunately U.S. Regulations are far less strict, for instance they allow far more pesticides to be sprayed on their farms, they allow their cattle to be injected with harmful hormones that are not allow in the EU.

Banking regulations will be relaxed by TTIP thus giving back more controls that came into force after 2008,back to the banks.

TTIP would also curtail some basic personnel privacy.where Internet providers would Have to monitors people's online activities.

Make it harder for public access to pharmaceutical companies clinical trials.

The EU has already admitted that this agreement Would lead to higher unemployment ( check out current EU countries unemployment rates),as jobs switch to the US where Labour standard and Unions rights are much lower.

It will allow giant US companies to take European governments to court,if they feel that government policies are hurting their profits,even when those government policies might be in place to protect their people. In other words these unelected transnational companies can and will dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.

Can you vote against TTIP ? Unfortunately not,as I have already said it is in the hands of the unelected commissioners in Brussels. Who will benifit? Big business and financial institutions.

Exactly - which is why I see the EU as an incredibly expensive (wasteful) protector against the worst excesses of the Brit. govt. and the US!

But the EU needs to reform, and I can't see this happening unless its threatened with extinction ala Brexit.

There is a strong possibility that global events will force the EU to reform in the not too distant future.

Absolutely true, it doesn't matter how many migrants get moved into town or how powerful the EU Parliament becomes, as long as house prices don't fall and current standards are at least maintained, that will all be OK.

Can you tell us where in the UK you come from to make such a remark?

I believe Cameron's constituency in Oxford has not been allocated any of these

Economic migrants. Osbourne's leafy Tatton just a couple. Now look at the areas in the north of England,completely different story,how about Rotherham in Yorkshire where they have at least inter grated with the vulnerable young girls. Another case of "I'm alright Jack".

Born and raised very near to Batley, Yorkshire for nineteen years, poster "Mosha's" neck of the woods, our dads used to work together.

Then overseas for many years.

My final and most recent stint in the UK was in a hamlet, four miles from Chipping Norton, for sixteen years.

Why?

EU migrants or Non EU migrants, they are all the same and it is very easy to tell people that the UK government has no control.

Reality does not come into it.

Last night the CEO(Deputy?) of Easyjet was on BBC news and tended to support the PM's view, but being currency based said it was speculative. What she did point out however is that currently the airline is allowed to operate domestic routes within the EU. In the event of a Brexit that will come to and end and they would only retain routes that went in/out of a UK airport.

They would then have to try and negotiate for any other route that they may be interested in. Costs would be passed on to passengers so it is virtually a certainty that European flights would rise in due course. She quoted the example of Etihad buying Air Berlin to get round the problem.

Of course like many other EU issues it is all meaningless to people who want to stay in their own back yard.

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

What you miss from your calculation is that the original number of 50,000 is not static, it keeps getting added to each year by some percentage o new immigrants, 5% or 10% wouldn't be a bad number. As a result the calculation has to be performed again each year on the additional 5% and added to the total and that is not an insignificant amount, after seven years it represents an increase of 50% over the starting volume. On that basis, 3 million is easily achievable, even allowing for deaths.

It's a factor,take note that the Muslims at present make up about 5% of the total population, however if you take a look at the numbers for just children,the figure increase to 10%. Yet even after taking these figures into consideration it is still undeniable that rampant unrestricted immigration is also a very important factor,and that is what will continue to happen while the UK remains in the EU. To vote to remain in this corrupt so called Union is comparable to turkeys voting for Xmas.

The most recent polls suggest the "turkeys" will be voting for Xmas! Less than a month to go and I predict the likes of Boris, Nigel and Gove will continue to damage the Brexit case and the silent majority will vote for the status quo. I just wish the Remain fools like Cameron and Osbourne would start making a more postive case.

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

What you miss from your calculation is that the original number of 50,000 is not static, it keeps getting added to each year by some percentage o new immigrants, 5% or 10% wouldn't be a bad number. As a result the calculation has to be performed again each year on the additional 5% and added to the total and that is not an insignificant amount, after seven years it represents an increase of 50% over the starting volume. On that basis, 3 million is easily achievable, even allowing for deaths.

If each couple have 5 children, you cannot keep adding more children in the following calculations for these same couples.

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

What you miss from your calculation is that the original number of 50,000 is not static, it keeps getting added to each year by some percentage o new immigrants, 5% or 10% wouldn't be a bad number. As a result the calculation has to be performed again each year on the additional 5% and added to the total and that is not an insignificant amount, after seven years it represents an increase of 50% over the starting volume. On that basis, 3 million is easily achievable, even allowing for deaths.

If each couple have 5 children, you cannot keep adding more children in the following calculations for these same couples.

I haven't checked the figure, but I don't think he did?

I am old enough to remember the UK as it was, a green and pleasant land....When I look at it now I see a crap environment, an influx of foreign spongers reaping stuff that ordinary UK folk fought for. My own dad shook his head before he passed at the mess our governments have created for UK folk..

They last few lines of this song tells it for me..

Much as I agree and well remember how it was normal for us kids to cycle off to 'green pastures' etc. wherever we liked for the day - the change has nothing to do with the EU.

The 'green pastures' have largely gone for those living in built up areas - and again, this has nothing to do with the EU.

Foreign spongers? Quite possibly, I haven't lived in the UK for a few years - but the main problem (to me) was uneducated temporary immigrants being allowed to work for a pittance (living in conditions unacceptable to anyone that has to live there permanently), and thereby pricing the poor out of already poorly paid jobs.

Apologies to nontabury for only copy and pasting part of his post at #1306 it deals with my comment

Quote "I did not gloss over your reasoning for the rise in the Muslim population in 1961 from 50,000 ( not 60,000 as I previously wrote ) to the present number of over 3,000,000. You are correct in pointing out the Muslim community does have a higher birth rate, for instance Pakistani born mother in the UK have on average 4.7 children, as apposed to a figure of 1.6 for the Whole of the British population. They also have a much youngest age profile. However this does not explain why their numbers increased from 1,600,000 on the 2001 census to 2,800,000 on the 2011 census. This was due in no small part to uncontrolled immigration,mainly in the form of the EU's open border policy." Quote

By my calculations we have:

In 1960 we have 50,000 people half male half female, so there are 25,000 couples, over 10 years they will have on average 5 children per couple.

So by 1970 we have 25,000 x 5 = 125,000 children half male half female plus the original 50,000 making 175,000 people

I give 20 years for the new children to mature,

So in 1990 we now have 67,000 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 335,000 new children now making 510,000 people.

So in 2010 we now have 167,500 new couples, they have 5 children per couple, so 837,500 new children now making 1,347,500 people

The next set of figures would be due in 2030, so in 50 years our 50,000 people became 1,347,500

Given that I have worked on 5 not 4.7 and not allowed for deaths the number is about one third of the three million.

What you miss from your calculation is that the original number of 50,000 is not static, it keeps getting added to each year by some percentage o new immigrants, 5% or 10% wouldn't be a bad number. As a result the calculation has to be performed again each year on the additional 5% and added to the total and that is not an insignificant amount, after seven years it represents an increase of 50% over the starting volume. On that basis, 3 million is easily achievable, even allowing for deaths.

If each couple have 5 children, you cannot keep adding more children in the following calculations for these same couples.

You don't understand: the 50k is the base number of immigrants at the outset, it's against that base number that the calculation of five children per couple is made. BUT, the base number of 50k is added to each year, not by adding children but by adding newly arrived immigrants to the base, I suggest 5 or 10% per year, ergo, the base number is constantly expanding through the arrival of not children but new migrants. Put another way, if none of the 50k had any children, the base number of 50K would still increase each year.

I am old enough to remember the UK as it was, a green and pleasant land....When I look at it now I see a crap environment, an influx of foreign spongers reaping stuff that ordinary UK folk fought for. My own dad shook his head before he passed at the mess our governments have created for UK folk..

They last few lines of this song tells it for me..

We are of similar age, I also remember the UK as it was back then and goodness knows how I miss the "back then" sometimes.

But the UK of today for people of our age group is different things, based on where they were born. Many parts of the North have become unlivable for the likes of me, I simply wouldn't go there to live again because it has changed so much.

But much of the shires, the area where I lived in the UK most recently hasn't changed much for a thousand years, literally, I'd go back there in a second but it's now become far too expensive - Cameron likes it though and no doubt he's going to protect it!

Perhaps helps some understand the difference in attitudes to the UK and Brexit/Remain.