If Brexit needs house of commons and Lords backing ...

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I am well aware of global population trends.

My point is that global birth rates have fallen 50% in just the last few decades - western country birth rates have almost all been below the replacement rate for the last 30- 50 years - some developed nations are already reaching a crisis point of an ageing population with millions fewer working age people to support them than is required for population stability.

China has abandoned it's one child policy having seen their population of working age people is already falling, and will fall further without urgent action....

It took the USA 70 years to get from 7% of the population being of retirement age to around 20% - China will do it in the next 25 years.

The depopulation of Russia is shockingly rapid - Russian population is on track to fall from 140m today to just 100m by 2040 - very bad news for the ability of the state to raise enough taxes to manage the largest geographic nation in Europe.

Japan's working age population has been falling for 20 years straight - and in that time they've racked up the largest national debt in the World at over 200% of GDP (versus 86% of GDP today in the post bank bailout and QE UK) to pay for their ageing crisis.

Germany needs another 24 million immigrants by 2040 just to keep their population of working age people at today's levels.

If current trends in falling birth rate continue global population will peak by 2060 and then decline rapidly - but alarmingly if global birth rate decline continues to accelerate at the progression we've seen in the last decade since the globalisation of information networks - we could hit peak population much, much sooner - 2040 or so.

The coming population crisis is not one of too many people - it's of too few.

The wars of the future will not be fought over oil, or water, or land - they'll be fought over the most vital natural resource of all - young people.

if all groups were as productive as the best, we could have an excellent per capita consumption of goods and services, with only a tenth the present world population.

most reasonable people believe that our ability to produce more goods and service per person has not peaked and has huge ongoing potential

most people believe that climate change involving warming is a real facts and an ever larger popluation will make it worse.

a small stable population will be great for all the people.

posh*spice

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I find it extraordinary that anyone can continue to be so ignorant of the facts.

Global birth rates have been plummeting for decades - most developed world countries have not managed to breed at even the 'population neutral' replacement fertility rate for decades - and the UK hasn't managed it for even a single year since 1970.

The coming population crisis is not one of too many people - it's of too few....

While global birth rates are plummeting the global population is still growing very fast because we are all living longer. The planet doesn't have too few peeps - it's still on target to grow from 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050 (UN figures). While the slowing birth rates may effect economic growth it will be great for the planet.

The idea that population growth pays of automatically into economic growth is nuts - it pays off only if the political leaders create the economic conditions necessary. In the 60s. And 70s rapid population growth in Africa, China and India led to famine, high employment and civil strife. In most countries strong population growth has not typically produced an economic miricale. For example Turkey has had a population boom in every decade between 1960 and 2000 - no economic miricale there. Ditto Philipines , The Arab world India and Kenya.

Here in the UK we are completely incapable of producing enough houses for everyone - so no - we don't have political leaders who can create the economic conditions necessary to cope will a million plus extra people every three years.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

let's assume that the supreme court upholds the judgement that parliament is supreme (which it obviously is)
are you saying that parliament will vote to invoke article 50 within weeks?
I belive that there will be thousand reasons why MPs will refuse to do this, most of which you will argue are valid.

Yes, I'd expect parliament to be act quickly enough such that the government's end March target would still be met. No MP representing a constituency where a majority of the turnout voted leave would contemplate voting against article 50 being triggered.

Also, despite all the politicking that has been going on (and yet to come) I don't think MP's would countenance voting in a manner to put parliament at odds with the referendum result.

They'd win a parliamentary vote, they'd win a GE and, in breaking news, this ruling is a godsend because it gives them some extra time to put the icing on their ace plans. I know you're less convinced than some of the other brexiters here but if every turn is allegedly a positive why on Earth wouldn't the government just go with the flow, get parliament to sign off and get on with it?

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, I'd expect parliament to be act quickly enough such that the government's end March target would still be met. No MP representing a constituency where a majority of the turnout voted leave would contemplate voting against article 50 being triggered.

Also, despite all the politicking that has been going on (and yet to come) I don't think MP's would countenance voting in a manner to put parliament at odds with the referendum result.

They'd win a parliamentary vote, they'd win a GE and, in breaking news, this ruling is a godsend because it gives them some extra time to put the icing on their ace plans. I know you're less convinced than some of the other brexiters here but if every turn is allegedly a positive why on Earth wouldn't the government just go with the flow, get parliament to sign off and get on with it?

lets hope the parliamentarty vote in favour will be an early xmas present

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

if all groups were as productive as the best, we could have an excellent per capita consumption of goods and services, with only a tenth the present world population.

most reasonable people believe that our ability to produce more goods and service per person has not peaked and has huge ongoing potential

most people believe that climate change involving warming is a real facts and an ever larger popluation will make it worse.

a small stable population will be great for all the people.

In the opening sequence on Attenboroughs new Planet Earth last night he told us the natural world has never been under more pressure. I suppose if all you do is count coins in your counting house, all that matters is having more Humans

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

lets hope the parliamentarty vote in favour will be an early xmas present

Hey, we might even get to hear about the plan.

wotsthat

Conrad wrote: »

In the opening sequence on Attenboroughs new Planet Earth last night he told us the natural world has never been under more pressure. I suppose if all you do is count coins in your counting house, all that matters is having more Humans

..he typed from the comfort of his counting house.

Sapphire

With regard to the human birth rate worldwide, it is unsustainable. In times past huge chunks of populations were removed by disease (for example, there was a plague per generation in London before the Great Fire). The population was self-limiting, and the planet therefore had a means to protect itself.

With diseases being eliminated in places globally, and people in the poorest parts of the world having huge families, overpopulation is a disaster for the planet (including the human species). The UN should be working very hard towards teaching humans in the parts of the world with a massive birth rate to exercise birth control, not attempting to dump them on to Western societies, so that ultimately they too will be destroyed. Otherwise one way or another (and it looks as though it will be through war), the human population of the planet will go down, perhaps dramatically. I only hope we don't destroy too much more of the natural world before this happens…

zagubov

I don't know that HAMISH is suggesting we encourage excessive population growth. He does seem to make the point that as some countries are producing children faster than us, some of their population can be encouraged to do that here, where an ageing population needs the support of a younger population who can work for longer, supply the infrastructure and support the older population needs, and pay the taxes needed to pay for this.

If you drive around the UK you find lots of empty land. Lets use it for something more than hunting and shooting..

gazapc

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/eu-referendum-polls/

For thos hoping for a second vote, be careful what you wish for.