EU and African leaders meet in Malta

[Workingman]

Trying to stem the tide of migrants from Africa to Europe.

Billions of €s are to be sent southwards in exchange for help to stop the migrants.

There is lots of talk about democracy, conflict, wars and poverty. I have not heard one person, not one, mention population growth or how it impacts on those other things.

In the 1960s, when many independence wars were fought, the population of Africa was about 300 million, it is now 1.4 billion. It is expected to double from today's figure by 2050.

In the same period the population of Europe has grown from 610 million to 740 million.

I know what my message to Africa would be, but it would be shouted down as racist. Such is the mess we are in.

[cromwell]

William Hague has written an article on population growth in the Daily Telegraph today, WM.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... urope.html

This is the first time I can recall any politician saying anything about the subject. We've been talking on and off about it for months and months on VV.
If anything Hague underplays the scale of the problem, but he does state that Europe has to start strengthening its borders.

To me it is simple. The third world is going to produce even more people, on a scale never before seen. Their own countries can't provide enough jobs, money or food for them, so they will try to come to Europe.

It can't be allowed to happen. If push comes to shove (literally) they will have to be kept out by force.

The population of Hungary has not altered much in forty years, slightly declining from 10.43 million to 9.89 million. The population of Nigeria has almost tripled to 173.6 million in the same time period, and they are far from alone in tripling their population.

Small European countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic (10 million), Slovakia (5.4 million), Montenegro (600,000), Latvia (2 million) etc etc can justifiably be worried about being swamped by an endless stream of "migrants".

[Workingman]

He certainly does underplay with the clever use of words.

"The increase in Africa’s population alone is set to be 1.3 billion by 2050."

A lot of people will read that as Africa's population being 1.3 billion in 2050. It is that already. The "increase" will see it a 2.4 to 2.6 billion, depending upon whose figures are used.

However, he is right with this:

"What we have seen in recent months is only a hint of what might happen next, mere gusts of wind before the approach of a hurricane."

That hurricane is barrelling in faster than we could ever have imagined.

[Suff]

Paying money up front is never going to work. You keep them out and throw them out if they get in.

If they want to spend money, then they should spend it on local businesses in Africa that employ local people and provide local wealth. Initially they can be loss making, but trending towards profit in the decades to come.

That is the only way that we will keep these impoverished Africans at home. I've seen this with Indians I know. Wealth and opportunity is limiting family sizes in the technical workers and providing for their families at home. Those who work in the technology sector and provide a good wage for their family do not want to come to Europe. The money from Europe comes to them and they can stay at home.

This should be the attitude for Africa.

Simply offering money to African countries to "keep them out" is never going to work. Most of the governments are corrupt and giving them this kind of money is only likely to make them push even more people at the EU to try and increase the flow of money.

These politicians in the EU are idiots and they need to be controlled...

[Workingman]

Well here's the thing.

The €2bn being offered to Africa is not enough even though it is on top of the €22bn given in EU development assistance every year. That is also on top of what individual countries give to former colonies.

I would tell them all aid stops tomorrow. The borders are closed and anyone trying to get in without proper papers will be turned straight back. Those with papers would be thoroughly vetted in a holding area before being let in - any doubts, back they go.

[Suff]

I'd do it slightly differently.

For every 1,000 people who try to get into the EU illegally, 1% of their existing aid budget is removed. For every 1,000 illegals removed from the flood of people trying to get into the EU, their aid budget is increased by 1% up to a maximum of a 100% increase....

I learned this a long time ago from a long time financial consultant. If you give people money they will spend it and ignore you. If you take money away, they will sit up and take notice!

[Workingman]

I learned this a long time ago from a long time financial consultant. If you give people money they will spend it and ignore you. If you take money away, they will sit up and take notice!

It is always the same. Provide something free and it will be well used. Once done it takes a lot of hard work, and hard hearts, to remove it, but it has to be done in order to make the users sit up and take notice, as you say.

There was a tear-jerker on the BBC, who else, from Senegal. Desertification is creeping in and people are moving. Now there are no jobs and poverty is rife so, guess what, England seems like a good place to move to. In the 1960s the population was about 3 million, it is now almost 14 million. Nobody sees that as part of the problem.

None of the experts seem to be to be able to grasp the obvious that growing the population nearly five times means that each individual gets a lot less. To put it another way: If the population grows so does the number of those born into poverty.

[cromwell]

There was a tear-jerker on the BBC, who else, from Senegal. Desertification is creeping in and people are moving. Now there are no jobs and poverty is rife so, guess what, England seems like a good place to move to. In the 1960s the population was about 3 million, it is now almost 14 million. Nobody sees that as part of the problem.

The BBC are a disgrace. They are not reporting news so much as running a propaganda machine.

Inconvenient facts like countries producing more people than they can support are just ignored.

[Suff]

I won't watch anything they produce in terms of "news" unless it has ben thoroughly verified by multiple independent sources. It means I miss a few things, but that is a reasonable price to pay for ignoring all their propaganda. If they keep on this way there will not be a single thing I will want to watch on BBC.

Every time I've been in the UK and the BBC has been on their programming has been little to do with British people and British values. Then again I pretty much always visit the Midlands so that might explain something.

If I see a BBC news article on Google News I avoid it and look for alternatives.

That, to me, is inexpressibly sad. I know that I have little tolerance for their "tear jerkers" today. I had even less tolerance when the family was young and we were on DSS in a 50% unemployment area.... Apparently, according to the BBC, the only poverty we need to worry about is that in the 3rd world. Well unless we're having a go at the Tories...