The UK needs to STOP growing! (Out the EU I say)

Watch
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Why do we need to stop growing?

Well think about it, if we can't produce enough food for ourselves as a nation currently. (Only 85% of what we need for a year) and we bring more people in through immigration that is a catalyst to a problem in the future.

The problem.

Now what is the problem? The problem of the future is with Food Independence and Global Warming. These factors will have major effects on the planet and could lead to some wars.

Food Independence.

This map shows countries that are self sufficient.
Image

Now the world currently produces enough food for 10 billion people however due to changes in climate we are losing arable land each year. check this news out and see why we need to protect our self as a nation NOW and not later. http://www.theguardian.com/environme...urity-shortage So if this trend continues which it most likely will due to Global Warming then we will end up with not enough food to feed everyone on earth causing riots and war.

What we can do to get the UK food independent:

First of all we need to get out of the EU, as many Eastern Europeans flood to our country catalysing population growth it is not helping. when out the EU we need to heavily educate people on not having too many children and provide more access to free contraception.

Global Warming:

We import a lot of food from Europe especially Germany and Netherlands as well as China which is 1st in supply's to the UK but that is mostly due to vast amounts of electronics been made there.

Image

Now what has this to do with Global Warming? Well the Netherlands is a big supplier of food to the UK as well as Germany with goods we want. But here is the issue The Netherlands is unlikely to hold against rising sea levels and Northern Germany. And there is alot of arable land there due to alot of the land been already under sea level.

Image

With these 2 major importers risking large sinking's in land area we can expect them to keep there food and drink for there own people and not export them to us, leaving us vulnerable to starvation.

To sum up:

The UK needs to get out of the ticking time bomb that is the EU and we need to educate people in our country on not having large family's and providing free access to contraception. We need to not stay dependant on imports and work towards our self sufficiency which could only be done effectively outside the EU making our nation safe for the future as we can cut out immigration.

The UK is a nation that can still be saved and can still be self sufficient but we have to act now! Get out the EU and get off food imports and work towards self sufficiency of our basic needs.
3
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
Self Sufficiency is ONLY something that can be done when outside of the EU.

This is most likely our only chance at getting out before self sufficiency is not possible for the UK.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
We haven't been self sufficient for the last 100 years or so. Why now?
1
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by ByEeek)
We haven't been self sufficient for the last 100 years or so. Why now?
The danger signs:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...urity-shortage

If we lose another 1/3 of arable land the world won't be producing enough food for everyone.
We produce enough food for 10 billion reduce by 1/3 = food for just under 7 billion people!!!!

We need to get our self back in gear because these countries won't export if they can't feed there own people!

With rising populations in the UK from the EU it is not helping our country, the only way to guarantee our nations survival is to get out the EU and stop people having large families then convert some grazing land to crop land as this gives more food in return.
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
You haven't actually explained why self-sufficiency is something we need, nor addressed the fact that virtually every environmental body in existence supports continued EU membership for the UK.
2
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Plagioclase)
You haven't actually explained why self-sufficiency is something we need, nor addressed the fact that virtually every environmental body in existence supports continued EU membership for the UK.
We need self sufficiency because it secures our future as a nation, but we can't have self sufficiency with EU movement. This is why we need to leave the EU. Now out the EU we can stop mass movement of people and focus on achieving self sufficiency.

Without the self sufficiency we risk been cut off with supply's as I have inferred from this source:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...urity-shortage

If we lose another 1/3 of arable land in the next 40 years then there won't be enough food to feed everyone this is exactly why we need the self sufficiency to keep the UK safely supplied with food.

These environmental bodies don't talk about any of this information they care more about having better access to the EU market and following EU systems with access to imports and the like. We can't rely on imports no more with uncertainty's of Global Warming and it's effects on crop failure leading to loss of arable land.
0
reply
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
We need self sufficiency because it secures our future as a nation, but we can't have self sufficiency with EU movement. This is why we need to leave the EU. Now out the EU we can stop mass movement of people and focus on achieving self sufficiency.

Without the self sufficiency we risk been cut off with supply's as I have inferred from this source:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...urity-shortage

If we lose another 1/3 of arable land in the next 40 years then there won't be enough food to feed everyone this is exactly why we need the self sufficiency to keep the UK safely supplied with food.

These environmental bodies don't talk about any of this information they care more about having better access to the EU market and following EU systems with access to imports and the like. We can't rely on imports no more with uncertainty's of Global Warming and it's effects on crop failure leading to loss of arable land.
If you look at the way the world has been progressing over the past few centuries, there has been a continuous trend of globalisation and inter-dependency, which is part of the cause of the general trend in increasing global stability. I see absolutely no reason why we're going to see a return to autarky-ideals in the future, nor why such a return would be preferable. If you encourage good international trade partnerships and trust, there is no reason why you need to be self-sufficient.

As someone who is concerned about problems like Climate Change, I'm really surprised that you can't see the the need for institutions like the EU. A major part of the reason why countries have been unable to respond effectively to climate change is because of a lack of coordinated global action. Essential developments like global carbon taxes and binding international agreements that might supersede the selfish wishes of individual countries are impossible with increased political fragmentation. Unions like the EU that have the ability to legislate at a global scale are absolutely essential for a world facing global challenges. The greatest challenges facing the world, of which Climate Change is only one of, are much more easy to tackle through legislative frameworks like the EU.

This article is talking about 33% of arable land being lost globally over the past 30 years. This does not mean that every single country in the world has lost 33% of its arable land and I suspect this value for the UK will be significantly lower. And indeed, the UK is not particularly vulnerable to desertification or droughts as a result of climate change so I do not think we're going to see anything close to a 33% loss in arable land here in the near future.

I think you're insulting the intelligence of environmental organisations. They're aware of all of these things. They have, pretty much unanimously, determined that staying in the EU is in the best interests of the environment as a result of analysing all of the available data.
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
You talk about the need to educate people about having less children but have ignored the fact that we have an aging population.

If we stop young migrants coming here then Brits will need to have more children to support this aging population.

Also if we weren't self sufficient in WW2 in with a smaller population, food rationing and every last scrap of land planted with crops how would we achieve it today even if we kicked every foreign national out of the UK?
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by JamesN88)
You talk about the need to educate people about having less children but have ignored the fact that we have an aging population.

If we stop young migrants coming here then Brits will need to have more children to support this aging population.

Also if we weren't self sufficient in WW2 in with a smaller population, food rationing and every last scrap of land planted with crops how would we achieve it today even if we kicked every foreign national out of the UK?
The UK today produces 85% of it's food through modern advancements in science.

The UK currently produces only 1 round of harvests due to climate limitations, however climate change could allow the UK to take advantage of a warmer climate to produce 2 harvests a year.

Also as you say some countries lose more arable land than others most likely Spain and India , Africa due to climate been very intense in these areas and climate change won't help them. Also Spain and India are major suppliers of food currently so this could add to the coming problem of food sustainability.

Out the EU we could consider limiting access to food per person (In the future) to ensure that everyone is fair off. We also need to be careful of exporting UK food in the future as this could starve the nation.

With a ageing population we can see that these people could probably work jobs into there 70's and why not let them. Increase retirement age until the person has a certain amount of pension money or reaches 70 this should help even things out so they are not left behind.

There is good possibility's out of the EU.
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Plagioclase)
If you look at the way the world has been progressing over the past few centuries, there has been a continuous trend of globalisation and inter-dependency, which is part of the cause of the general trend in increasing global stability. I see absolutely no reason why we're going to see a return to autarky-ideals in the future, nor why such a return would be preferable. If you encourage good international trade partnerships and trust, there is no reason why you need to be self-sufficient.

As someone who is concerned about problems like Climate Change, I'm really surprised that you can't see the the need for institutions like the EU. A major part of the reason why countries have been unable to respond effectively to climate change is because of a lack of coordinated global action. Essential developments like global carbon taxes and binding international agreements that might supersede the selfish wishes of individual countries are impossible with increased political fragmentation. Unions like the EU that have the ability to legislate at a global scale are absolutely essential for a world facing global challenges. The greatest challenges facing the world, of which Climate Change is only one of, are much more easy to tackle through legislative frameworks like the EU.

This article is talking about 33% of arable land being lost globally over the past 30 years. This does not mean that every single country in the world has lost 33% of its arable land and I suspect this value for the UK will be significantly lower. And indeed, the UK is not particularly vulnerable to desertification or droughts as a result of climate change so I do not think we're going to see anything close to a 33% loss in arable land here in the near future.

I think you're insulting the intelligence of environmental organisations. They're aware of all of these things. They have, pretty much unanimously, determined that staying in the EU is in the best interests of the environment as a result of analysing all of the available data.
Think about this, if the whole world was 1 nation and we could not meet the demands for the globe we would end up having wars between different parts of the globe due to a a lack of access to resources. Staying out the EU and focusing on self sufficiency will better separate us out of these issues allowing us to get on with our nation and fixing problems with population of the country.

I know Climate Change is a real issue as you do also. But the EU is more of a problem than a supporter to these issues. We receive people who come to the UK from the Eastern area's of the EU and they are a real problem making it harder to achieve goals of self sufficiency as we would end up using more land that could be used for farming to build homes.

Also as you say some countries lose more arable land than others most likely Spain and India , Africa due to climate been very intense in these areas and climate change won't help them. Also Spain and India are major suppliers of food currently so this could add to the coming problem of food sustainability. If 33% of land is lost in last few decades and now we have a increased CO2 output compared to back then nothing is going to stop this issue and 33% of Arable Land could be lost much sooner these next few years.

Staying in the EU is yet again a "Problem" towards reaching a solution as a nation. If we had little mass movement from the EU then fine we would be better off in the EU but we don't so it is too risky staying in the EU towards reaching these goals because mass movement pushes self sufficiency out the window and we will be needing it in the future as countries will be keeping as much food as they can for there own people.
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
Think about this, if the whole world was 1 nation and we could not meet the demands for the globe we would end up having wars between different parts of the globe due to a a lack of access to resources. Staying out the EU and focusing on self sufficiency will better separate us out of these issues allowing us to get on with our nation and fixing problems with population of the country.

I know Climate Change is a real issue as you do also. But the EU is more of a problem than a supporter to these issues. We receive people who come to the UK from the Eastern area's of the EU and they are a real problem making it harder to achieve goals of self sufficiency as we would end up using more land that could be used for farming to build homes.

Also as you say some countries lose more arable land than others most likely Spain and India , Africa due to climate been very intense in these areas and climate change won't help them. Also Spain and India are major suppliers of food currently so this could add to the coming problem of food sustainability. If 33% of land is lost in last few decades and now we have a increased CO2 output compared to back then nothing is going to stop this issue and 33% of Arable Land could be lost much sooner these next few years.

Staying in the EU is yet again a "Problem" towards reaching a solution as a nation. If we had little mass movement from the EU then fine we would be better off in the EU but we don't so it is too risky staying in the EU towards reaching these goals because mass movement pushes self sufficiency out the window and we will be needing it in the future as countries will be keeping as much food as they can for there own people.
Farm land generally doesn't get built on anyway. I know a few farmers and trying to get them to sell land is like getting blood from a stone.

Working a few extra years doesn't solve the problem of an ageing population, the fact is the children of the baby boomers aren't having as many children themselves and we need more young people in the country to re-balance
things, or the current crop of middle aged people will be ****ed when it comes to pensions and care later in life. There's a lot of physical jobs that people can't manage in their 60's and 70's as well.

You've replied to the wrong person re arable land in Spain and India.
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Self sufficiency is unachieveable because lots of foods British people want to buy can't be grown in this country like bananas, the most popular fruit in Britain. Being self sufficient means guaranteeing prices for home grown foods that will cost the taxpayers a lot of money and there will be a lot of waste like the EU had in the 1980s with wine lakes and butter mountains.

Britain also can't grow tea, coffee, chocolate, pepper, etc that British people really like. Britain tried to limit cheap food imports once with the Corn Laws but it only lead to high food prices that benefited land owners at the expense of ordinary people and was eventually repealed.
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by JamesN88)
Farm land generally doesn't get built on anyway. I know a few farmers and trying to get them to sell land is like getting blood from a stone.

Working a few extra years doesn't solve the problem of an ageing population, the fact is the children of the baby boomers aren't having as many children themselves and we need more young people in the country to re-balance
things, or the current crop of middle aged people will be ****ed when it comes to pensions and care later in life. There's a lot of physical jobs that people can't manage in their 60's and 70's as well.

You've replied to the wrong person re arable land in Spain and India.
I noticed I got the wrong reply there. when I was doing the second guy. I'm sure there smart enough to figure out.

The UK population is increasing BUT we need to get on line somewhere and stop things like this happening:

Image
If Germany can stay fairly flat and work on slight reduction at the moment then why can't we? We won't be needing all so many workers in 50 years anyway due to machines doing a lot of job's so we can get people focused on other things and let the machines produce goods and the government focus on providing people there basic needs and combating climate change.

We just need to put the plug somewhere and level off.
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Maker)
Self sufficiency is unachieveable because lots of foods British people want to buy can't be grown in this country like bananas, the most popular fruit in Britain. Being self sufficient means guaranteeing prices for home grown foods that will cost the taxpayers a lot of money and there will be a lot of waste like the EU had in the 1980s with wine lakes and butter mountains.

Britain also can't grow tea, coffee, chocolate, pepper, etc that British people really like. Britain tried to limit cheap food imports once with the Corn Laws but it only lead to high food prices that benefited land owners at the expense of ordinary people and was eventually repealed.
We could possibly grow a lot of these in large greenhouses.

How about in the future of self sufficiency people pay more tax (covering as shopping bills). The government buy in all the UK produce each year with this money and distribute it out evenly to the UK population allowing people to have a varied diet and keeping farmers growing and supporting self sufficiency.
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
We could possibly grow a lot of these in large greenhouses.

How about in the future of self sufficiency people pay more tax (covering as shopping bills). The government buy in all the UK produce each year with this money and distribute it out evenly to the UK population allowing people to have a varied diet and keeping farmers growing and supporting self sufficiency.
It isn't financially viable to grow this stuff domestically otherwise we'd be doing it already. Greenhouses aren't sufficient, you'd need a heated environment with uv lights.
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by JamesN88)
It isn't financially viable to grow this stuff domestically otherwise we'd be doing it already. Greenhouses aren't sufficient, you'd need a heated environment with uv lights.
A heated environment with UV lights? We possibly won't need that. With global warming the south of England will soon enough be producing foreign foods.
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
I noticed I got the wrong reply there. when I was doing the second guy. I'm sure there smart enough to figure out.

The UK population is increasing BUT we need to get on line somewhere and stop things like this happening:

Image
If Germany can stay fairly flat and work on slight reduction at the moment then why can't we? We won't be needing all so many workers in 50 years anyway due to machines doing a lot of job's so we can get people focused on other things and let the machines produce goods and the government focus on providing people there basic needs and combating climate change.

We just need to put the plug somewhere and level off.
Germany's aging population is worse than ours. That's why they were happy accepting so many young migrants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by JamesN88)
Germany's aging population is worse than ours. That's why they were happy accepting so many young migrants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729
We probably won't need migrants anyway. If we leave and need them we must:

Accept only those who know English.

Accept those with good qualifications.
0
reply
JamesN88
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
A heated environment with UV lights? We possibly won't need that. With global warming the south of England will soon enough be producing foreign foods.
Lol, it'll get a bit warmer on average but we're not heading for a tropical climate any time soon.

(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
We probably won't need migrants anyway. If we leave and need them we must:

Accept only those who know English.

Accept those with good qualifications.
Not necessarily, Industries that rely heavily on immigration are often low skilled. I doubt many highly qualified people would be willing to be care workers or pick fruit in fields all day for minimum wage.
1
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by JamesN88)
Lol, it'll get a bit warmer on average but we're not heading for a tropical climate any time soon.

Even a few degrees could allow for enough change to start growing some tropical foods. We got vineyards in the North of England, you know! But we can still eat other thing's better grown here. We don't have to rely on these items


Not necessarily, Industries that rely heavily on immigration are often low skilled. I doubt many highly qualified people would be willing to be care workers or pick fruit in fields all day for minimum wage.
The Highly Qualified would be coming to get jobs where needed not working a Pound Shop Checkout.

The UK has 5% unemployment (those able to work and looking for work) these jobs in pound stores etc. should be offered to British people who need work.

But will we really need all this labour in the coming years as we got technology starting to do just about everything?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (213)
43.83%
I'm worried that I'm not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (56)
11.52%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (36)
7.41%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as 'lesser' because I didn't take exams (103)
21.19%
I don't think that receiving these grades will impact my future (51)
10.49%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (27)
5.56%

Watched Threads

View All