But then we still had Bretton Woods and two Cold War blocs and globalisation had not taken off.
When Denmark voted to join or stay out of the Euro zone back in 2000, there were also endless droning on about how it would be an economic disaster for Denmark if it didn’t become a yes. By an almost united choir of economics, political pundits, and politicians.
And look now, the Eurozone has not only been something of an economic & political disaster for most of the member states, the no-vote has been a gigantic economic benefit for Denmark, that saved Denmark tens of billions of euros. I have yet to hear a single of the so-called experts admitting to their extreme failure for accurate prediction back then.
Have to say, this whole case has turned me sour on almost all predicted negative economic consequences of anything to do with countries voting no on EU subjects.
The UK leaving the EU seems to me to be worse for the EU that for UK.
Thing is, instead of allying with countries like Denmark, and the significant anti-federalist factions within nominally nominally pro-EU states, the British government would rather grandstand and get cheap approval from the Daily Mail.
[Hijack]Actually, the Archers regularly do sections last minute before release, unless they get a heads up about future news events like sudden deaths as well. One of the advantages of being a radio show with a hell of a lot of experience on the team. My Mum’s a big fan.[/hijack]
The fact that refugees aren’t necessarily all staying in the first possible stopping point does not make them economic migrants. Which ‘close safe havens’ did you have in mind that would be able to safely house the full number- over 4 million already? Clearly that isn’t going to be practical.
It’s hardly as though the war in Syria is expected to be over in a few months, any planning, whether by individual refugees or by governments has to consider the next few years projects at a minimum, not just an emergency shelter. Some refugees have family in the UK, or speak some English but no other European languages, it’s not necessarily anything to do with the wealth of the county, or the ‘generosity’ of the benefits system.
As it currently stands, we, that is Britain, have accepted fewer than 1000 refugees from Syria, according to the Home Office. That’s less than the number of students in my old school. The total number they’ve agreed to accept is only 20,000, over the next 4 years. Peanuts in a country of 60,000,000.
It is not a question of the size of the population it is about land mass England is a small country with a population density of 413 people per sq. km. compared to France who’s population density is 119 people per sq. km.
The UK is far more than England, TYVM.
That said, we currently do not produce enough food to feed ourselves, and that is a real problem.
England…413 per sq. km
Wales…149 per sq. km
Northern Ireland…135 per sq. km
Scotland…68 per sq. km
These are government figures
With the exception of Scotland the other three nations within the U.K. have a higher population density than France. Scotland is a separate case because of her geological makeup, many of the islands within her boarders are uninhabitable, the same can be said about the Highlands where there is little or no infrastructure.
You are correct we do need to plan to become self-sufficient in food production also in the generation of clean energy
So how was the UK able to be self-sufficient (in food production) during WWII? I know, there was food rationing…literature suggests that people were healthier because of it.
Why on earth does it matter? You can buy from the France (that stupidly subsidises), the Ireland, etc.
Economic efficiency is more important than romanticisms
Our population in 1945 was 47 million you must take into consideration that the majority of the men were away fighting around the world. The figure I have for 2014 is 64 million an increase of 17 million. Yes people were healthier MacDonald’s, KFC and Burger King did not exist then sadly they do now
It wasn’t. Home production increased enormously, and there was a conscious decision to put people on to eating bread and vegetables rather than meat (because that was more food value per area), but there was still a dependence on imported food. Hence the U-boat war
Oh have you not heard that during WW2 we could not get food from Europe we had to import food from America. All countries should be self-sufficient in food production and have the ability to feed their people
The UK was never self-sufficient in food throughout WW2. The very best we managed was ~75%. That’s one of the reasons why the Battle of the Atlantic was so important.
Ramira has not heard of the convoys and the thousands of people who died in the Atlantic while keeping Britain supplied
I am well aware of WWII. The idea that in the 21st century or even in the 20th century you should have a national policy based on the WWII is bizarre.
The idea that national policy should be food autarky (or any other autarky) is an economic illiteracy that has ruined many nations that tried it.
No, I simply am not a badly educated person basing their ideas of national policy on romanticisms or badly understood history.
it is crazy and a silly romantic nationalism superstition, it is inefficient and it would impoverish
You may have had a better education that myself but you lack the intelligence to apply your education, your arrogance amazes me, you are completely self opinionated and you try to steamroller anyone who dares to disagree with you, as far as you are concerned you are the only one who is right, You only argue you never debate you never consider that others may have a valid point that is not your own
Badly understood? Those who ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.
My parents lived through WW2. They remembered the rationing all too well. In the link I gave earlier, it notes that the British government began to prepare for rationing in 1936. Three years before WW2. The ability to feed your people in time of war is a critical strategic consideration for both sides. Right now, the UK can’t do it. And please don’t give me any rubbish about war like that being a thing of the past: they said that after WW1. You might also recall that the embargo of Japan was a significant contributor to their decision to go to war with America.
TM, insults of any kind are not permitted on the SDMB outside of the BBQ Pit.
I’m giving you a warning for this post. Please don’t do so again.
Yes, badly understood.
and those who do not understand how things are changed are doomed to replicate the past mistakes as well, blindly - like the Generals of WWI.
Preparing for the last war as if it will be replayed is indeed the classic mistake that has seen many countries engaged in stupid, wasteful, useless actions. the France, the romans, etc.
Excellent
So did mine.
and you think that you British had worse rationing than the families in the Occupied and the Vichy zones? Or colonials (not the white French)?
Yes, it is the logistics.
of course it can, it can trade with any number of very efficient agricultural producers, and it is allied with the strongest military in the world.
any scenario where there is a war where the USA is destroyed or can not protect your supply of food is a scenario of world collapse where the idea of self-feeding is ridiculous - it is nuclear holocaust of a meteor strike that destroys the north hemisphere.
War of course not.
World War like those two, of course. The technology has totally changed, no more is a world struggle going to be structured around a slogging like those wars, the technology makes that pointless.
Preparing an agriculture strategy for a WWII repeated is a huge waste of time and money, it is illogical, it is irrational, it is incoherent, it is impossible and it is a huge waste and it would be superstitisiously silly.
Et alors?
They did not emgargoe food. It was petrol.
But if the UK were in a situation where it could not trade for that food, it would be in big trouble. Consider, for instance, an independent UK blockaded by the EU. The UK would almost certainly feel forced to use its nuclear weapons. (Shades of Yes, Prime Minister.)