No you shouldn't sue them Chris. They should be allowed to make their own choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
Printable View
No you shouldn't sue them Chris. They should be allowed to make their own choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
That would only be true under the assumption that's people's views remain the same as they get older. The reality is that for many people they change over time. Young people are more likely to be idealistic but as they grow older their views often change as they gain more experience of the real world. There are many examples of mainstream politicians and journalists who held far left views in their student days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
As for 16 and 17 year olds having the vote in the referendum, why should they have? The age of voting in elections in the UK is 18. Of course it is true that in the Scottish referendum the Government made this concession to the SNP as part of the negotiations for holding it. (The SNP has since introduced it for Scottish Parliament elections.) But let's be honest the SNP only wanted it because they thought it would benefit them in terms of votes. Had polls suggested that 16 and 17 year olds were in favour of staying in the Union they would have been a lot less enthusiastic. I wonder if you would be quite as keen if 16 and 17 year olds were thought to be in favour of leaving the EU.
The fact is a decision was reached in a fair election organised under a typical UK franchise. Isn't it about time you just accepted the result?
Unlike the normal drift to the political right with age, I think people's ideas on Brexit - given that it is binary, and not a spectrum - will be more fixed. As to the voting age it is of course just a matter of opinion, but I think 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote - it would be part of their education and give them a sense of responsibility, and, after all, education issues affect them more than the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
We don't have to accept the result of an election we do not like, we can hope for a vote of no confidence/lots of defectors to the opposition and so on - and that is in a situation where we will vote again in 5 years time at the most. The Brexit result is dodgy on so many levels - how vague does a referendum have to be, how low can the turn out be, and how many blatant lies have to have been told before the result should be declared null and void and the whole referendum question clarified and repeated?
We are drifting away from Brexit now, but I actually think there should be a single age of reckoning in the law for adulthood. We have so many inconsistencies in terms of the age of consent for sex, drinking alcohol, driving, competing in senior competition....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
I'm open to debate on what the age should be, however I tend to think that the current crop of 16/17 year olds overall, are less aware of many of the issues that need to be considered at a general election and so I would have a universal 18 year old limit.
Even at 18, there are question marks over how many would have a grasp of the issues. We have seen that questioned even with older voters following the referendum.
I note a discussion on the Daily Politics yesterday about the election of an NUS delegate at Durham University. Average turnout in these elections across the UK is 4% and the huge surge in interest at Durham only lifted it to a 10% turnout.
He stood on the slogan "the NUS is a bit shit isn't it".
Based on what evidence? Personally I find it hard to believe that while a person's general political views may naturally change over time they won't with regard to the European Union and they will remain just as idealistic. If you're theory is right it would mean that over time the general population would become more europhile. In fact the opposite is true, and over the last 10 to 20 years the general public has become more eurosceptic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
As you say it is a matter of opinion. Personally I think 16 is too young. After all we don't allow people to drink alcohol or get married without permission until they are 18. The overwhelming majority of countries around the world set 18 as the minimum age for voting in national elections. If we were to change it then we should make the decision for all UK elections not just for specific ones for reasons of political gain for one side. I don't remember there being the same clamour to alter the voting age before the last general election.Quote:
As to the voting age it is of course just a matter of opinion, but I think 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote - it would be part of their education and give them a sense of responsibility, and, after all, education issues affect them more than the rest of us.
It's a free country, you're perfectly entitled to not like the result of an election. What would be a scandal however would be if those in positions of power were to overturn the will of the electorate.Quote:
We don't have to accept the result of an election we do not like, we can hope for a vote of no confidence/lots of defectors to the opposition and so on - and that is in a situation where we will vote again in 5 years time at the most. The Brexit result is dodgy on so many levels - how vague does a referendum have to be, how low can the turn out be, and how many blatant lies have to have been told before the result should be declared null and void and the whole referendum question clarified and repeated?
It's a reasonable point that you make that in most elections we get the opportunity to change our minds in five years time. Obviously in a referendum like this that is impractical.
In fact those voting in the last referendum on the EU in 1975 had to wait 41 years before having an opportunity to vote again and most of us have never had a say on the EU at all. The referendum was long overdue not least because the EU is such a different animal from what it was in 1975 when it was little more than a trading bloc. Since then successive Governments have given away sovereignty without ever allowing the electorate a say - sometimes promising a referendum on a treaty and then reneging on the promise as the Labour Government so shamefully did after 2005.
The point of the referendum being vague is quite a strange one to me, as it couldn't have been clearer, stay or leave.
It's the same question as in the 70s.
You can argue about what type of leave, hard brexit, soft brexit etc, but what type of Remain? What was the next treaty likely to contain? As MR says the EU in 2016 is not what we voted on in the 70s.
The real point is that a referendum gives a direction. The Government has to deliver a package and will be judged accordingly.
It will be judged accordingly at the next general election.
We will also see more detailed trade policy, immigration policy and maybe even manifesto commitments to fully or partially rejoin.
I was just too young to vote at the last referendum in 1975 and too immature to have well former political views, perhaps I still am because I don't think my views have changed very much at all. I was a young Liberal at the time and definitely didn't want to join Europe although I don't know what the parties position was. Nowadays my views tend to be much more issue based than along any particular party lines.
I know. Just making a point to the Liberals.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Great tune stags. I hope Commodity (Longdogs) hasn't been riding her motorbike on that Teachers. She'll fail the breathalyser. Oh and is she still barred from Tescos? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
If Mike-T and the Remainers had won the vote we wouldn't have heard a squeak from them. They were all for the vote when they were certain they were going to win but come up with all sorts of scenarios and conditions for voting when they lose.
And for all the chit chat on here about economics. It is a testament to the British people who voted out that they didn't put money (economics)before what they thought was right. They knew they might take a hit financially but they were prepared to do it to set this country on the right course. The European Union was corrupt and we couldn't let it go on.
Yes this country has corruption problems too but by culling the European Union we've hopefully made it a little easier to deal with them.
She will listen to no one. She says she wants contribution to her agenda but if anyone tries to give any that is not in direct agreement with her then like a school yard bully she shouts them down and ridicules them giving them no chance to challenge her. How is that democracy. Nicholas Sturgeon is so anti-English it would be considered a hate crime if against another race. Her whole agenda is for Scotland and to hell with the UK. I'm pretty angry with the statement she made today. Surely now is a time to work together to get the best possible outcome for the whole of the UK not for Scotland alone. Please watch it all not just the sound bites given out on the news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0894fxs
The exact same line of thinking that many remainders used.Quote:
It is a testament to the British people who voted out that they didn't put money (economics)before what they thought was right.
What would have happened if everyone in Scotland eligible to vote had voted remain? In a way Scotland support the vote for Brexit by individuals either voting for it or by abstaining.
Nicola has no reason to do anything but what's "best"* for Scotland. The SNP exists primarily to achieve indepence for Scotland. Getting on merrily with Westminster and the Tories doesn't help attain that goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceTheSweeper
So I'd not hold your breath.
*Subjective, in the long run I think the two countries are best parting ways.
Single issue politicians, eh? If they don't get what they want first time, they'll keep banging on until they do......! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c56393f12
Wow that's current ;-) I'll post this link up again in April :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0894fxsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hobbsy
May as well do, as we'll need something to read whilst we wait for the Brexit strategy to be published....! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceTheSweeper
haha, fair pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Hobbsy
Christmas present, might be a good read...
Attachment 8598
I see the bank of England admitted making a gaff of figures for our exit.
Was likened to a Michael Fish statement.
There was also a lesser covered report from the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge who found that Treasury pre Brexit report was "very flawed and very partisan".
I acknowledge that certain individuals on both sides may have egged up or down certain things. Leave for example stand accused of the £350m claim on the bus.
Most of these were fully scrutinised in the media and I think people were in a reasonable position to make a judgement on them.
However, when institutions central to the Governance of this country put out BS and dress it up as independent, expert opinion it needs further scrutiny. Why and how did this happen?
It's stands comparison with Blair's dodgy dossier.
Once the process is finished I'd like to see a proper assessment by an independent enquiry because if we are to have such a decision made again by way of a public referendum, we need to make sure that information is accurate, that opinions don't get dressed up as facts and that the machinery of Government cannot be used to deceive.
Why wait until it is finished? The result was just a reflection of public opinion, and is in no way legally binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If the public can't make a choice why not just be another Russian state?
If this had been a medical case and a decision needed to be made by the patient and their relatives whether or not to operate, the level of information given by the surgeon has been so appalling he would have ended up in court. So it is not that the public shouldn't be able to choose, but that they need to be given the appropriate, honest, and clear information before doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
The problem with this is there is NOT a right answer. There are advantages and disadvantages to both outcomes. The Brexiters will argue the advantages of leaving outweigh the disadvantages, remainers the opposite.
2 words Doc
Democracy, Majority.
... and in court the crooked surgeon would simply say "you all signed the consent form ..." but that does make the process right, or the outcome good - and if the operation had not yet taken place it could be cancelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
I think we have enough on our plate at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
I also think that the issue is what the machinery of Government put out. Individual politicians and campaigners will come out with stuff that is easily challenged. They are venturing an opinion and I don't see there is any way to stop a political campaigner coming out with a whopper. If they goes as far as telling lies, then they'll come a cropper.
Organisations such as CBI, IFS are answerable to their subscribers. The IFS for example is seen as credible but only so long as they stack up.
But the Treasury and BoE should be beyond reproach. We've seen how the political will of Government can be used to politicise the machinery of Government particularly with Iraq and Blair with the dossier.
It's still going on. It needs sorting.
Except that the margin of vote was just 3.8%. And only 37.4% of the overall electorate voted for brexit anyway. A government pushing through such an extreme change based on what is such a small margin of brexit vs remain is bonkers, especially as the old made up such a large part of the brexit vote and a good chunk of those will have died if not already then in the next 10 years. There's even a strong view that if the referendum was rerun today there would be a convincing remain win! If so the government pushing through with what's sounds day by day to be a hard brexit outcome will be completely un democratic for the electorate that exists when the uk is actually out of the EU!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
As for referendums, they're their own living proof that they should never ever be used to make "democratic" decisions - didn't Germany hold a referendum to give Adolf Hitler supreme power following the death of Hindenburg in 1934!?
It's a slightly bigger majority if you discount Scotland as they have more or less said they won't be bound by the outcome anyway.
A wins a win Stolly.
Everyone had the chance to vote.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Or ignore London?
I'd prefer to ignore the ultra right wing racist vote. It would've been a comfortable remain without them
Well it might, but to be fair you would also have to ignore the ultra left wing socialist vote. Problem is, you cant chop lumps off the electorate to end up with the result you want.
I'm not sure there was an ultra left wing socialist vote? In fact part of the problem was that long term labour working class voters jumped ship to vote with the extreme right wing UKIP anti immigrant brexiteers
What are people's opionion on the relationship between Brexit and Zero Hour's Contracts (plus other "business friendly" actions)?
Many people voted brexit because they (RIGHTLY) felt that globalisation/ full fledged capitalisation was not working for them. Not saying it would be right but if the govermenent has reigned in the abuse (and that is the right word) of people at the bottom of society would the vote have been different? That is something that is totally within the UK Goverment's control. Will it change after brexit, I fear not.
Stolly afraid the result is the result (regardless of the margin) so we just have to live with it.
This is just for Stolly to cheer him up.
Nobody else needs to look.
Especially not Wheeze. :cool:
https://youtu.be/dh_Og-MjWZI
Thanks millipede :DQuote:
Originally Posted by millipede
I am not very comfortable about this. How would we like it if a criminal was up in court; that criminal was able to decide if what he done was a crime or not.
Is is that different with a British Bill of Rights. Usually when a UK citizen goes to the European Court of Human rights the British Goverment is the defendant. With the British Bill of rights the Defendant gets to write the law.
Don't understand why you'd object to a British bill of rights on this basis but not a European bill of rights. Countries and governments had to agree or ratify such laws in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Oh this is going to be difficult, let me think about it for a nanosecond, workers rights for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL