I'm very conscious, that for certain members of society, if they don't have children/grandchildren, the outcome of the vote is unlikely to impact on their lives, one way or another. I have some sympathy with the guy who said that his grandmother had voted OUT -as was her right- whilst he, and many of his generation felt we'd be better off staying IN. He felt aggrieved that the older generation were potentially making decisions for a world they wouldn't live to see.
A novel idea April but I fear it would set a dangerous precedent for democracy. Why stop there, why not have a mininum age since maturity brings wisdom?We do have a minimum age, don't we?
We do have a minimum age, don't we?
I'm very conscious, that for certain members of society, if they don't have children/grandchildren, the outcome of the vote is unlikely to impact on their lives, one way or another. I have some sympathy with the guy who said that his grandmother had voted OUT -as was her right- whilst he, and many of his generation felt we'd be better off staying IN. He felt aggrieved that the older generation were potentially making decisions for a world they wouldn't live to see.
I wonder if there has been some misinformation put about that the older voters were responsible for Brexit happening?For some reason there is a perception on this forum that I am elderly, and spend all day dribbling onto my cardigan (I think we have Faithlilly to thank for that). Fact is, I'm in the prime of life still, and for the record I would vote no to an upper age limit on voting. ?{)(**
With the exception of one elderly voter that I talked to, they all voted to stay in
From my side alone of the Madeleine forum we have the following posters commenting
Jean-Pierre
mysty
Alfred
Brietta
me (Sadie)
I am the oldest, but I don't think any of them are young and we all voted to stay in.
For some reason there is a perception on this forum that I am elderly, and spend all day dribbling onto my cardigan (I think we have Faithlilly to thank for that). Fact is, I'm in the prime of life still, and for the record I would vote no to an upper age limit on voting. ?{)(**
I'm very conscious, that for certain members of society, if they don't have children/grandchildren, the outcome of the vote is unlikely to impact on their lives, one way or another. I have some sympathy with the guy who said that his grandmother had voted OUT -as was her right- whilst he, and many of his generation felt we'd be better off staying IN. He felt aggrieved that the older generation were potentially making decisions for a world they wouldn't live to see.
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.
The Representation of The People Act 1928 gave the vote to all those 21 years of age and above. A similar Act lowered the voting age to 18 year olds and over in 1969.
It took hundreds of years for people to win the right to vote, and less than 100 years after the right was won people are discussing how they would like to see others disenfranchised.
The Representation of The People Act 1928 gave the vote to all those 21 years of age and above. A similar Act lowered the voting age to 18 year olds and over in 1969.
It took hundreds of years for people to win the right to vote, and less than 100 years after the right was won people are discussing how they would like to see others disenfranchised.
Annie Kenney would be spinning.
I have "liked" this because it appeals to my intellectual snobbery however putting on my practical and pragmatic head, it will not work. It will exclude half the population. My comment based on everything to the left of the centreline of a standard distribution curve will have to go. One can nitpick of course to whittle it down to 33% I expect but whatever its kin lots. Why not drop back to only allowing married women to vote. (ducks) 8()-000(
What I find strange is that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the recent Scottish independence referendum but they aren't deemed fit and proper to vote in any other election. Was this basically an attempt by the Scottish Nationalists to manipulate the outcome on the basis that they thought the wee dears would vote for indy en masse?
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.
What I find strange is that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the recent Scottish independence referendum but they aren't deemed fit and proper to vote in any other election. Was this basically an attempt by the Scottish Nationalists to manipulate the outcome on the basis that they thought the wee dears would vote for indy en masse?
Discrimination of the stupid. &%&£(+
Why stop there. Who else should we ban from voting?
The handicapped perhaps, gays, methodists?
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.Rather than imposing any sort of criteria on the electorate I would like to see consequences for politicians and others who deliberately mislead. This could include fines (personal and party) and losing their seats. The electorate should be able to rely on information presented in referendums and elections. Where the information is found to be deliberately misleading then there should be consequences.
Rather than imposing any sort of criteria on the electorate I would like to see consequences for politicians and others who deliberately mislead. This could include fines (personal and party) and losing their seats. The electorate should be able to rely on information presented in referendums and elections. Where the information is found to be deliberately misleading then there should be consequences.Scuse my ignorance but who are Andy and Tess?
It's outrageous that the Brexiteers advertised and claimed 350 million "could" be used to fund the NHS when this was never a realistic proposal.
I didn't bother voting as it was obvious to me there was so much BS on both sides.
Now the whole thing has turned into a farce akin to X Factor and Big Bro!
IMO BJ and MG look and sound ridiculous. Are these really the sort of people we want representing us on the world stage? I hope the pair of them disappear from public life forever.
Andrew Marr interviewed Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove on the AM show this morning. The contrast could not be starker.
Come on Andy and Tess! The absolute dream ticket! 8@??)( 8@??)(
You have to get used to Holly's shorthand. She meansOK, thanks - I thought they were opponents not running partners? What about news today regarding Leadsom's complete volte-face on the EU from 3 years ago when she was a staunch Remainer?Prince Andrew and Tess Daly
Sorry that should be Mrs' Leadsom and May.
OK, thanks - I thought they were opponents not running partners? What about news today regarding Leadsom's complete volte-face on the EU from 3 years ago when she was a staunch Remainer?
As far as I am aware sixteen and seventeen year olds are allowed to vote in every election in Scotland. Scottish Parliamentary elections and local council elections, not only the Independence referendum.
This has been deemed a great success, engaging this age group in political debate and giving them the chance to vote in accordance with their own hopes and political desire.
Rather than imposing any sort of criteria on the electorate I would like to see consequences for politicians and others who deliberately mislead. This could include fines (personal and party) and losing their seats. The electorate should be able to rely on information presented in referendums and elections. Where the information is found to be deliberately misleading then there should be consequences.
It's outrageous that the Brexiteers advertised and claimed 350 million "could" be used to fund the NHS when this was never a realistic proposal.
I didn't bother voting as it was obvious to me there was so much BS on both sides.
Now the whole thing has turned into a farce akin to X Factor and Big Bro!
IMO BJ and MG look and sound ridiculous. Are these really the sort of people we want representing us on the world stage? I hope the pair of them disappear from public life forever.
Andrew Marr interviewed Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove on the AM show this morning. The contrast could not be starker.
Come on Andy and Tess! The absolute dream ticket! 8@??)( 8@??)(
Perhaps if, as in Australia, it was compulsory to vote, the outcome may have been very different. As it stands, almost half of those who voted are unhappy with the outcome.
You're right of course and thanx. The voting age for teenagers in Scotland for UK Parliamentary and European elections remains at 18 years of age.
A bit of a dogs dinner if you ask me and yet another cynical excuse for Scotland to be different!
I think it is very sensible to allow that age group to vote. After all sixteen/seventeen years old can be married, join the army, learn to drive, so they should be allowed to vote.The human brain does not complete physical development until about age 25.
We are different in many ways. Different legal system, different education system, different health service, different drink/driving levels..............
We are a different country and the results of the referendum here were quite different.
This £350m bollox is long in the tooth now. It doesn't matter one iota whether it is £350m or £100m the point is the same and has been emphasised over the last few days by the Tory leadership hopefuls. That money whatever it is will be spent on our NHS instead of being given away to eastern Europe to spend on their donkey farms.
Dont these eastern european countries have to pay the eu to be a member? If so, why shouldnt they get benefits like the Uk does for the financial input made?
On the chart at post #41 every country from Malta down takes more from the EU than they pay in and that includes all Eastern European former Soviet Bloc States, they are all net beneficiaries.
Interestingly, Portugal, Spain, Poland and Greece top the list of takers! Isn't it wonderful, the UK, Germany and Holland are effectively subsidising Portugal and Spain, who would have thought it?
You also have to ask why. Why would rich European nations want to share their wealth with poor European nations? The answer seems to be that free movement of labour helps raise productivity in the richer nations.
We are told we need immigration of working age people to maintain our economy and to pay taxes to maintain our services. What will happen to those countries who appear to be losing their populations? Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are losing more people than they are gaining. The richer EU members are gaining more people than they are losing. Are they 'buying' workers?
I'm no expert but we clearly pay a lot into the EU. Of course we have a rebate too, negotiated by Mrs Thatcher, but it's not a permanent arrangement. Without the rebate we would be paying more.
I don't understand why we have a Trade deficit of £ 85 million either. That means EU countries sell more to us than we do to them. I thought the main benefit of Trade deals was to sell, not buy.
There's a chart showing the differences per country here;
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-3666465/How-does-EU-need-Britain-s-trade-Brexit-means-ll-out.html
We do have a trade surplus in services sold to EU countries. The development of our economy from manufacturing to services has paid off in that respect.
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
Could our service economy compete in the world markets outside the EU? I guess that's the big question, and not one that the service industries and our governments are keen to try.
Effectively yes. Poorer countries within the EU are being starved of their youth.
I would be very interested in examples of the UK's 'political clout' within Europe.
I would also like to know how joining the EU will benefit the poorer nations in the long term when they are left with their aging populations and a lack working people to help support them.
History has a habit of biting us in the backside just when we least expect it. My eldest is visiting Cancun at the moment and he sent me some links about the Mayan civilisation, a lesson for all who think our way of life will never change.
Several attempts have been made to create a Utopian Europe in the past and all have ended in war. People don't like to lose their national characteristics or their sense of identity, thus why more than 17 million UK citizens voted on 23rd June 2016 to dump the EU and everything its stands for.
I believe trade deals are the least of the EU's problems. It's disintegration and the threat which that exposes is really what's at stake!
Some see a German dominated EU as a definite threat to all European nations. This was written in June 2014;
Leo McKinstry: Germany controls the EU, we MUST get out NOW
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/485699/Germany-s-march-to-control-Europe-is-now-relentless
Germany has grown substantially in power and influence ever since Russia released its control over what was post WW2 East Germany. It has become the engine house of Europe once more and despite appearances of a democracy within the EU, Germany actually controls it. The Germans control just about every aspect of the EU from the European Central Bank to the election of EU Presidents. The simple truth is that without Germany's money and influence there would be no EU.
Despite claims of scaremongering, the EU is heading for a one State Federal Europe with a European Army controlled by...yes you guessed it...Germany! I'm afraid the UK vote to leave the party is the fly in the ointment they feared most.
absolutely right and they are still going to want us to buy their cars so I see them being happy to do a trade deal ...if it comes to it
What are the potential consequences if the EU collapses and who will that benefit?27 countries and their people will all benefit by...
27 countries and their people will all benefit by...Makes you wonder why countries are so anxious to join the EU in the first place, doesn't it.... &%+((£
* being free again to run their own countries,
* set their own bank interest
* and tax rates etc.,
* be able to make their own trade deals without 27 countries having to be consulted and taking years to complete,
* be free of the stifling bureaucracy that snags up industry and enterprise and has led to economic stagnation in the E.U. and mass unemployment in some eurozone countries, and
* be free of having to send their M.E.P.s all over Europe to sit in TWO Parliaments where their votes are merely advisory and have no legal effect whatsoever.
All good.
The only downside is that manufacturers of EU flags and a few thousand MEPs and Eurocrats will be out of a job.
Oh, and all those translators in the European Parliament who have to translate everything into German, Portuguese, Catalan, Slovenian, Welsh, Gaelic, Breton, Basque, Finnish, Hungarian, Latvian, Danish, Greek, Polish, Swedish, Dutch, Ruthenian and Ruritanian etc.
Makes you wonder why countries are so anxious to join the EU in the first place, doesn't it.... &%+((£
Because most of the recent joiners were net gainers?So then it's fair to say that not all 27 countries have something to gain from the dissolution of the EU isn't it?
So then it's fair to say that not all 27 countries have something to gain from the dissolution of the EU isn't it?
That would depend on their priorities. Is funding more important than sovereignty and the other benefits listed by blonk? That is the question each country has to consider. It was easier for the UK because our financial contribution to the EU was greater than our gains.Funding is not the ONLY benefit that the EU brings to net gainers. There is access to the single market and free movement for 2. But if Blonk is right, and there are no benefits whatsoever to be gained from countries being in the EU then I expect all 27 nations are itching to pull the trigger on Article 50 even as we speak. The end of the EU by Christmas no doubt.
That would depend on their priorities. Is funding more important than and the other benefits listed by blonk? That is the question each country has to consider. It was easier for the UK because our financial contribution to the EU was greater than our gains.
What does "sovereignty" actually mean in the context of 2016?