UK population growth is slowest in 14 years as migration from EU falls

The UK population is growing at its slowest rate in 14 years because Brexit means fewer EU migrants are arriving here without a job, ONS figures show.

The data shows that the population hit 66 million for the first time in mid-2017 but is growing at a rate of 0.6 per cent, the lowest since mid-2004.

While the number of people coming to the UK to take on a job they have already secured has remained stable, the number immigrating to look for work fell by 43 per cent in the year following the Brexit vote, a trend which is particularly stark for EU citizens.

The report said that the fall in the number of immigrants was the "largest single driver of the lower level of population growth in the year to mid-2017".

"Over three-quarters of the decrease in net migration can be accounted for by EU citizens," it added.

The overall number of international immigrants was 572,000, 78,000 fewer than in 2016, a 12 per cent fall.

The number of new EU citizens in the UK fell by 82,000 between 2016 and 2017, from 189,000 to 107,000.

"The EU referendum is likely to be one of the key drivers of these changes," the report added.

"The number of people immigrating for a definite job has remained stable but there has been a 43 per cent decrease in the number of people immigrating to look for work over the last year, especially for EU citizens," it said.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/28/uk-population-growing-slowest-rate-14-years-fewer-eu-migrants/

GOOD

those who have a definite job are welcome

those who come to "look for work" are not....absorbing benefits for a varied and unknown time, taking out benefits before contributing....

In other words... the mass immigration madness is still happening!!!


650,000 in 2016... and another 572,000 in 2017!!!

It’s not a bad thing to slow down the population every now and then.

The madness of mass immigration has to end!!!


It's only been going on since labour opened the floodgates in 1997... and against the wishes of the British people, who have never agreed to it, and are strongly opposed to it...!!!


The British people voted for stronger controls on immigration, and a limit of tens of thousands of only carefully selected allowed...!!!

@tommy
You have Never experienced mass migration

Australia has had at least 50% higher migration (some times double) than the UK the entire time

eddie wrote:It’s not a bad thing to slow down the population every now and then.

Tell that to Japan. Having too many pensioners and not enough working age people who can pay taxes is a catastrophe, economically speaking.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:It’s not a bad thing to slow down the population every now and then.

Tell that to Japan. Having too many pensioners and not enough working age people who can pay taxes is a catastrophe, economically speaking.

Russia and Japan are in the same boat...

(Both have had shrinking and ageing populations since WWII..).

Probably won't be too long before we see Britain and some old Euro' countries heading down the same track.

veya_victaous wrote:
@tommy
You have Never experienced mass migration

Australia has had at least 50% higher migration (some times double) than the UK the entire time

And with the Brits and Irish forming the largest group of those immigrants over the past 230 years...

Dr Jane O’Sullivan, honorary senior research fellow at the University of Queensland’s School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, said Australia was effectively “running to stand still” to keep pace with the infrastructure needed to accommodate new arrivals.
“It costs more than $100,000 in public money per person that we add to our population,” she said. Dr O’Sullivan said the figure was derived by looking at the gross fixed capital formation figures and household expenditure data.
“What we spend on durables is partly replacing the things which reach the end of their lifespan, and partly expanding our stock of those things to keep pace with population growth,” she said.
“So you can separate those parts to come up with the figure for how much we actually spend on expanding everything we need to support our lifestyle. It turns out as a society, it’s around 6.5 per cent to 7 per cent of GDP per 1 per cent of population growth.
“So if we’re growing at 1.6 per cent, we’re spending more than 10 per cent of GDP just running in order to stand still, not improving the level of service we’re able to provide people, simply keeping up with the number of hospital beds and school classes to keep things at a level standard.
“To a large extent we are not keeping pace, we’re actually falling behind, so the quality of life people are enjoying is going backwards.”
Dr O’Sullivan said the “usual rejoinder” was that governments had failed to spend adequately on infrastructure, but the numbers didn’t bear that out.
“They have more than increased their spending in proportion to population growth, it’s just becoming increasingly expensive as our megacities cities become bigger and denser,” she said.
“The cost of every extra person becomes more expensive because suddenly you have to build road tunnels, high-rises, refit increased sewerage capacity..'



https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/it-will-destroy-australia-as-we-know-it-dick-smiths-warning-as-population-surges-towards-25-million/news-story/feb3ccbc6257ac21314e703ce0828b5b

Tommy Monk wrote:Dr Jane O’Sullivan, honorary senior research fellow at the University of Queensland’s School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, said Australia was effectively “running to stand still” to keep pace with the infrastructure needed to accommodate new arrivals.
“It costs more than $100,000 in public money per person that we add to our population,” she said. Dr O’Sullivan said the figure was derived by looking at the gross fixed capital formation figures and household expenditure data.
“What we spend on durables is partly replacing the things which reach the end of their lifespan, and partly expanding our stock of those things to keep pace with population growth,” she said.
“So you can separate those parts to come up with the figure for how much we actually spend on expanding everything we need to support our lifestyle. It turns out as a society, it’s around 6.5 per cent to 7 per cent of GDP per 1 per cent of population growth.
“So if we’re growing at 1.6 per cent, we’re spending more than 10 per cent of GDP just running in order to stand still, not improving the level of service we’re able to provide people, simply keeping up with the number of hospital beds and school classes to keep things at a level standard.
“To a large extent we are not keeping pace, we’re actually falling behind, so the quality of life people are enjoying is going backwards.”
Dr O’Sullivan said the “usual rejoinder” was that governments had failed to spend adequately on infrastructure, but the numbers didn’t bear that out.
“They have more than increased their spending in proportion to population growth, it’s just becoming increasingly expensive as our megacities cities become bigger and denser,” she said.
“The cost of every extra person becomes more expensive because suddenly you have to build road tunnels, high-rises, refit increased sewerage capacity..'



https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/it-will-destroy-australia-as-we-know-it-dick-smiths-warning-as-population-surges-towards-25-million/news-story/feb3ccbc6257ac21314e703ce0828b5b

but the Problem is Aussie are not so Hill shepherd in mentality so we told dick Smith to go Fuck him self as we don't want to preserve the Australia that he remembers


and their argument for costs are bullshit too.
we have seen mismanagement and failure to invest in infrastructure for the future. Anyone that doesn't think they could do fuck tonnes better than what has been done shouldn't be part of the conversation since they are incompetents.

it cost so much to fix now because the baby boomers literally sold of land that was but aside for roads and rail expansions by the war generation, because they didn't need roads and rails there but of course we do now and have to buy it all back. of course the gov't of the day got it's kick backs

So bleats the outback convict !

Veya tries to blame the "Baby Boomer" generation (that's those in the same age groups as me, Andy, Quill (?), and company, by the by..) for those government mismanagement decisions, and starting the asset rundowns and selloffs...

Those "millenial"--led claims are total bullshit !!!

Across much of the industrialised world, governments began closing down regional railways and flogging off public assets back in the 1980s (during the Reagan-Thatcher era..); and steering more of their spending towards grandiose "monument" developments around the big cities, and 'pork barelling' in marginal electorates. Those pollies were pre-Baby Boomers -- born before World War II..

These days, a lot of the bureaucrats, pollies and investors continuing those wastrel ways are now in their 30s and 40s -- effectively, X and Y-Gen' idiots repeating the same old greed-fuelled stuffups as previous generations...