It's easier to scream a slogan (especially if it's just one word) than think.

It was a particularly poor example to pick to invent numbers for. The translation service has been privatised and rates for freelance translators (who didn't turn up in Porsches before) have been cut.

Was there any point in me explaining that the figure came from an employee of the department in question? Or underlining that Brexit, etc., was affected by the feeling that sometimes people just aren't listening?

Or that Brexit was affected by people making figures up.

Edit: I see enough people on here can't even relay what I've said properly and that's in writing so I have little faith in unsubstantiated Chinese whispers.

Not quite, I do recall the specific planet saving initiative in the 60s and 70s when many took the warnings of Ehrlich seriously. That was Prof Ehrlich so he had a certain expertise.

Largely because the law exists only through the democratic consensus of the electorate.

Funny then that none of the childless couples I know are that way with any concern for the environment at all.

And funny that you are opposed to one of the best population control measures, allowing poor people to migrate to richer countries where their birthrate falls rapidly.

Who knows who you know? All I said was that this was a common subject of debate, especially in schools, at the time and population control went hand in hand with the new, and various, methods of controlling family size. It was pitched as a planet saving initiative.
The problem with lots of poor people migrating to rich countries is that it is one or two generations before that lower birthrate kicks in and if it is to be effective one would have to invite most of the poor countries in with devastating effect on the host nations With of course after several more generations little impact on the poor countries.
Approx every generation the population of Pakistan doubles yet it is one of the world's leading manpower exporters.

I know that looks like a sentence using english words.
But what does it actually mean?
The law exists in fact because from time immemorial people at the top have decided what the laws should be and have constructed systems to enforce them.
The law existed before democracy was a twinkle in the eye of the first voter.

You are correct. In the 60s/70s The Population Bomb was a book much discussed, and taken very seriously. It had dire warnings of future mass starvation due to over population. The answer given was to limit the family to replacement levels. No more than 2 children!

From time immemorial many of the poor broke the law and had no respect for it. The fact that parliament makes the laws is based on the premise that the electorate as a whole agree they have the right to do so. This has broken down many times in the past the most recent example being the poll tax riots where the new law was opposed by just too many to make the law, and law it was, a workable proposition. Even democratically elected governments have to consider the ongoing views of the electorate from time to time.
That situation has been enforced from below and through the democratic process.

Thank you. The trick was just to replace yourself with a few couples having an extra one for luck.

I'm not sure I would say it was 'much discussed ' and most of its predictions did not come true, which the author himself has admitted.

None of the predictions came true, as far as I am aware. Shows the dangers of believing predictions from "experts" - you might as well read horoscopes.

Most people do stop at two children, though. Maybe the message has subliminally percolated through.

As for "much discussed", it was discussed among my acquaintance, and I'm sure there was a fair bit of media attention. Maybe I noticed it more because I was interested in the subject, having reached the age when having children was very much on my agenda.

I can't see the problem in our parliament exercising due diligence re the democratic process of Article 50, isn't that part of the 'taking back control' slogan?

Prior to the High Court ruling their argument was that Britain was losing its sovereignty, and even its democracy, by being part of the European Union, echoing Boris Johnson's view that EU membership is incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty.

It's interesting observing the same posters reinventing themselves as Scholars of jurisprudence to denounce the court ruling re parliamentary involvement.

Which brings me back to Ms Miller, all she has done is use the wealth of case law some dating back to the English Civil wars to show that Parliament must be legally and democratically involved in the process.

It's now down to the Supreme court, either way we will be leaving, it really boils down to whether the Supreme court believe that the electorate deserve a transparent process or they don't.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/ind...at-britain.pdf

It will be interesting to see whether the mSupreme Court takes into account the differences between Scottish and English law. It's a long read, but could really throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

And if we'd all had 2 children as you were apparently taught there would be no need for immigration to provide services for us as we age. But we didn't so there is.

Nah.
Just blame the immigrants. Easier.

Well, apparently, I was not on my own being taught that. The thing is we were taught specifically that the world was over populated. The reasons why the birthrate dropped below 2 are many, varied and complex but being taught that the world was over populated and saving the planet was linked to the number of children we had certainly had an input. For some reason you think that people being told erroneous facts as regards the EU will influence their voting intentions sufficiently to swing a referendum but being subjected to low level save the planet, birth control, small families information over many years will not influence people at all seems rather hypocritical.

Very few here blame immigrants, many blame high levels of immigration and the lack of the ability of our Government to control it and even the seeming unwillingness of the Government to control it. Can you see the difference between blaming immigrants and blaming high levels of immigration? You do not blame water for a flood, you blame the lack of control of that water.

Did not alter the fact it was a doomsday scenario at the time and it was widely believed.

deleted

As another poster said, two children was the benchmark.

No-one childless I know was influenced at all by overpopulation.

The government might not be able to "control immigration" after Brexit, particularly given its position as a major economy and a post colonial power. This could well turn out to be one of the great fallacies and falsehoods of the referendum. Saying 'membership of EU = out of control immigration : leave the EU = controlled immigration" seems incredibly simplistic.

What would stop them?