After the census results campaigners attempted to downplay the impact of rapid population growth on life in England. We were told to take solace in the fact that the Japanese live in even more crowded conditions and that England is only the third most densely populated country in the EU. Evidently some cannot wait to come out top of the league of crushed societies. The logic behind this – as we squeeze ourselves onto public transport and congested roads – is not apparent.
Others suggest that we must provide evidence that 70 million is a better population figure for the UK than any other round number. But given that 79% of people think that England is already overcrowded, and since this is a democracy, surely that is to stand the question on its head. It is for those who want to continue with a policy of mass immigration to justify their position.
It cannot be seriously suggested that continued mass immigration is a suitable means of paying off the deficit. The example mentioned by the OBR involved a UK population of 86 million by 2060 and they recognised that this would be only a temporary solution with yet more immigration needed if the “benefit” was to continue; nor can it be claimed that immigration pays for our pensions, since immigrants grow old themselves and even the previous government gave up making that ludicrous argument; and it cannot be said that immigration significantly increases overall wealth since the increase in GDP per capita is negligible. In short, there is simply no convincing economic argument for mass immigration.
Nor is it enough simply to state that one is pro-immigration as if the only alternative is no immigration. Migration Watch UK are pro-immigration, but at a level that is roughly in balance with emigration. So the question – to those who wish to maintain the current high levels of immigration – is why?