So knowledge of/control of a nation’s population is essential to the efficient management of a nation’s economy, welfare provision and future planning. My personal opinion is that ‘free movement of labour’ within the, then, Common Market made some sense within a few like-minded nations – if only because back then it was to the advantage of a lot of British workers to work abroad. The problem very much deepened when the E.C. lots of other countries to join, most of those countries having had a different modern history to the original six. The inevitable consequence was that free movement of labour became a one-way street, this despite the fact that many of the newer member countries had very good education and welfare systems within their own country.
This is not to decry any individual or group of individuals, it is a comment solely on national/inter-national policy. Indeed it is quite clear that many recent migrants to Britain retain an ‘old fashioned work ethic’ that seems, sadly, all but lost to our own people, it is quite clear that many employers prefer recent immigrants as more reliable workers, a perfectly understandable situation. Indeed, if the current situation were to lead to a renaissance of the British work ethic it would all be worthwhile – but I don’t yet see it happening.
Current events apart, what sort of densities of population could define the future. What aspects of the British nation and environment would be lost if population density reached the levels already seen in some south-east Asian countries? The whole issue of density of population v. transport infrastructure, the welfare state, education provision and the environment certainly needs to be constantly addressed.
(To be continued).