UK Justice Forum

UK and North American politics. => A look at British politics in the light of the decision to leave the EU. => Topic started by: APRIL on June 30, 2016, 07:19:12 PM

Title: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: APRIL on June 30, 2016, 07:19:12 PM
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.

53
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on June 30, 2016, 08:56:54 PM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: sika on June 30, 2016, 09:01:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on June 30, 2016, 09:17:07 PM
Universal suffrage means everyone who has reached voting age is eligible to vote apart from a very few exceptions.
 
When do the elderly lose their votes? As predicting the age of death isn't possible how would it be possible to pick an age to take away the right to vote? Should we also remove the vote from young terminally ill people?


 
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on June 30, 2016, 09:19:11 PM
We do have a minimum age, don't we?

Sorry, i should have said an elevated minimum age.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: sadie on June 30, 2016, 11:33:53 PM
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?

With the exception of one elderly voter that I talked to, they all voted to stay in


Deleted before I upset anyone else %5&%

Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alfie on June 30, 2016, 11:55:19 PM
I wonder if there has been some misinformation put about that the older voters were responsible for Brexit happening?

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.   ?{)(**
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: sadie on July 01, 2016, 12:01:00 AM
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.   ?{)(**

Soz Alfie.

I don't spend all day dribbling onto my cardigan   .... Yet !


An upper age limit with all the experience that comes with age, that's got to be a plus.

And how about the lower age limit of 16.  Is that OK ?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on July 01, 2016, 12:02:34 AM
And I am a youth of some 21 summers and a few months.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on July 01, 2016, 12:06:50 AM
490 to be precise
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: mercury on July 01, 2016, 12:08:20 AM
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've not ever seen any correlation between age and understandng/knowledge let alone wisdom (ever heard the saying out of the mouths of babes)on political matters (or intelligence and objectivity)  and the crucial issues in elections, and here, a referendum which would have been a harder subject to master, so no

If the country can send you to war, allow you to marry, insist you pay tax, and be a law abiding citizen, they can give you the vote

Eta seeng as the seas are unchartered, no one can say what the future will be so older people dont necessarily have the right view...the future is always taken over by the newer generations and thank god for that otherwise the world would be stuck in a rut for eons
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 01, 2016, 12:45:30 AM
There is no right or wrong vote in any Election provided people aren't coerced. People of all ages make their decision and cast their votes accordingly.

People of 21 can make every effort to learn what the issues are and cast their vote thoughtfully. People of 80 can vote a certain way because their favourite politician tells them to. The reverse can also apply.

Whatever people's reasons and whatever their ages, classes or educational levels they have one vote each and are entitled to use it how they think fit.

If you vote for something and you lose that's tough. Not enough people agreed with you. Accept it and get over it. Attacking others and suggesting that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote is childish and immature. It's also a step backwards. Universal suffrage wasn't handed to the people on a plate, they had to fight for it.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: mercury on July 01, 2016, 12:59:29 AM
I said before and will say again, there was no need for cameron to gamble the countrys future instead  of just "sortng it out" with everyday politics both at home and abroad

Because the way I see it exiting the eu might be a lead balloon vis a vis all the problems promised to be solved

And if you add potential economic downfalls then its all been a crock of the proverbial and for what...bloody egos and right wing racists

Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: mercury on July 01, 2016, 01:14:12 AM
What about people who are not given the vote? People whose lives might be affected as well as every britsh citizen? What about people who emgrated here decades ago and integrated fully, they didnt get a say, what about them? Arent they disenfranchised? Why do some people who should get a vote are denied it and others who just walked in yesterday get one
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Brietta on July 01, 2016, 02:43:15 PM

In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: sadie on July 01, 2016, 03:07:42 PM
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.

I like your response Brietta, but I think some maturity and experience of the world is desirable ... so a lower age limit should be in place.  imo
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 01, 2016, 06:05:08 PM
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.

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(
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 01, 2016, 06:05:43 PM
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.

1. What is 'intelligence'?
2. Do tests reliably measure intelligence?
3. Which tests in particular would best reveal the 'right' people to be given the vote?
4. Does being unaware of the problems associated with defining intelligence, let alone how to measure it mean anyone recommending testing is demonstrating their own lack of intelligence?
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2758/are-iq-tests-reliable

 &%+((   %&)**#




Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 01, 2016, 06:23:49 PM
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.



Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 01, 2016, 06:55:24 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 01, 2016, 08:04:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 01, 2016, 09:21:24 PM
Annie Kenney would be spinning.

Levels of education were wider in the past. Class divisions were greater too. Those who fought for the vote didn't discriminate, they didn't pick and choose, they fought for everyone to have the same right. Rich or poor, basic education or higher education, old or young; one person one vote.

Now we seem to have taken a giant step backwards. One referendum and people are prepared to throw away everything that was achieved historically.

It's easy to judge others and to tell yourself you're superior to them. The truth is we all have different talents and all of them are needed in a society. The intelligent educated ones will always need someone who can carry heavy things when they want to move house. They will always need people who are willing to deal with their rubbish. They will always need someone to clean their plush offices.

Everyone contributes so everyone is entitled to a say. I'm reminded of Animal Farm. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: sadie on July 01, 2016, 09:26:24 PM
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(

The intelligence test need not be a high level one Alice.

Just high enough to make sure that the voter has enough intellect to make  a reasonable job of voting.  Set at , say 95% of people passing .... or maybe a higher or lower percentage, but most people who can reason at all, would pass it.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Brietta on July 01, 2016, 09:44:25 PM
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?

Should 16-year-olds be able to vote?
Scotland's 16 and 17-year-olds will be casting their votes in a referendum on independence. Why not elsewhere?

(http://www.enquire.org.uk/youngpeople/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/the-scottish-youth-parliament-designed-by-young-people-led-by-young-people-voting-debate-forums.jpg)
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/should_16_year_olds_be_able_to_vote/11441

It could have been as cynical as that, John, particularly as Alex Salmond proposed it. I think it proved to be successful in engaging their interest as many young people were evidently enjoying participating in the run up to referendum day.
I don't know if anyone has carried out a study on how they actually voted on the day, although it is almost guaranteed the SNP will have a fair idea, but I think support was fairly evenly distributed across the parties.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on July 01, 2016, 10:30:57 PM
In my opinion, rather more pertinent than an upper or lower age limit for voting ... would be the ability to pass an intelligence test.


Discrimination of the stupid.  &%&(+

Why stop there. Who else should we ban from voting?

The handicapped perhaps, gays, methodists?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Erngath on July 01, 2016, 11:08:24 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 02, 2016, 07:55:59 AM

Discrimination of the stupid.  &%&(+

Why stop there. Who else should we ban from voting?

The handicapped perhaps, gays, methodists?

Anyone who has doubts about a certain couple? That's a sign of stupidity according to some.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 02, 2016, 09:44:06 AM
I really don't think that an upper age limit could ever be applied in voting.

The uproar if it was attempted, would be unprecedented.

Likewise, any attempt to impose limits relating to I.Q. would also be met with hostility.

Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on July 02, 2016, 10:55:20 AM
A referendum is not legally binding but the result is the result.
I have posted this below  before in the MM thread in another context:
Philippa Langley, she of Richard III remains fame, at least had the dignity to refrain from saying "let's keep digging til we a find a straight one".
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 03, 2016, 11:22:26 AM
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.

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@??)(
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: APRIL on July 03, 2016, 12:36:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alfie on July 03, 2016, 02:13:30 PM
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@??)(
Scuse my ignorance but who are Andy and Tess?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Myster on July 03, 2016, 02:30:28 PM
You have to get used to Holly's shorthand. She means Prince Andrew and Tess Daly

Sorry that should be Mrs' Leadsom and May.
 
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alfie on July 03, 2016, 03:36:23 PM
You have to get used to Holly's shorthand. She means 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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Myster on July 03, 2016, 04:53:42 PM
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?

Heaven help us! Two women fighting for the top jobs... PM and Chancellor!

AL changed her mind when Cameron came back from negotiations with his tail between his legs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3672165/Andrea-Leadsom-woos-Tories-promise-heir-Thatcher-REFUSES-rule-bringing-Nigel-Farage-beats-Theresa-Tory-crown.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3672165/Andrea-Leadsom-woos-Tories-promise-heir-Thatcher-REFUSES-rule-bringing-Nigel-Farage-beats-Theresa-Tory-crown.html)

If you haven't already watched the latest Leadsom interview (26:00 minutes in)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07k5s9c/the-andrew-marr-show-03072016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07k5s9c/the-andrew-marr-show-03072016)
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 03, 2016, 05:23:32 PM
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.

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!
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 03, 2016, 05:28:58 PM
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@??)(

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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 03, 2016, 05:32:17 PM
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.

I think that should be the case here, great idea.  8((()*/

PS    Please remain on topic.guys.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Erngath on July 03, 2016, 07:04:12 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on July 03, 2016, 11:01:59 PM
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.
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.
The human brain does not complete physical development until about age 25.

I am not talking about life experience here.  I am simply talking about when one's brain is built.

Our 20 year old granddaughter went on a Facebook rant about how it was disgusting that the oldies had denied her generation's wishes.  Did she herself vote?  Of course not.  My (fossil) partner took the effort to vote, and went for remain.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: mercury on July 03, 2016, 11:11:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 03, 2016, 11:37:53 PM
There are net contributors and net beneficiaries. I think you can work out which are which;

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/09/eu_budget_spending/img/graph_net_contrib_466x485.gif)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: mercury on July 04, 2016, 12:23:37 AM
Oh! Thanks GU, its all Greek to me, so much research to do, on so many aspects, I will leave it to the experts (the honest and totally independent ones, but which ones are they lol)
oh well, we have all witnessed history in the making this last week or so


Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 04, 2016, 06:23:13 AM
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.



Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 07, 2016, 12:25:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 07, 2016, 11:12:52 AM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 07, 2016, 12:27:25 PM
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?

Effectively yes.  Poorer countries within the EU are being starved of their youth. 
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Carana on July 07, 2016, 12:34:14 PM
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.



It's not just about free trade, though. It's also about having political clout in collective decision-making on non-trade issues.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Carana on July 07, 2016, 12:38:02 PM
Effectively yes.  Poorer countries within the EU are being starved of their youth.

And what generally happens with nationalistic regimes, poverty and a sense of loss of hope of a better life?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 07, 2016, 12:47:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 07, 2016, 01:07:25 PM
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!
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Carana on July 07, 2016, 01:22:37 PM
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!

What are the potential consequences if the EU collapses and who will that benefit?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 07, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
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
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: John on July 07, 2016, 01:58:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 07, 2016, 05:31:58 PM
It's very difficult for anyone to argue that all the members of the EU are equal. Each new treaty draws the countries in further and this vote could lead to the EU making it more difficult for a country to get out in future. It's always wise to judge a situation by what the facts tell us, not by what people say. Judging by what I've learned the UK should get out and take their chances.  Money is desirable, but not at the expense of freedom.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Davel on July 07, 2016, 05:37:07 PM
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
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Carana on July 07, 2016, 06:03:56 PM
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

Quite possibly... but at least one "European" car company has a UK subsidiary headquarters (BMW which owns Rolls Royce and the Mini).

http://www.am-online.com/news/2014/2/14/relocations-for-bmw-and-honda-uk-headquarters/34428/

And other non-European car companies appear to have substantial UK-based manufacturing plants, the majority of whose production appears to have been for export, with the EU being the biggest trading partner, if I've understood this correctly.

I haven't looked into the import side of the equation yet, though (so there could be yet another misleading factoid floating around).



UK car manufacturing hits 10-year high in 2015

    21 January 2016
    From the section Business

Image copyright PA

Car manufacturing in the UK has hit a 10-year high, with more vehicles exported than ever before, according to the industry's trade group.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said almost 1.6 million cars were built in 2015, up 3.9% on 2014.

Nearly four out of five cars were exported, up by 2.7% on 2014, despite falls in sales to China and Russia.

But this was offset by economic recovery in Europe, where demand for UK-built cars increased by 11% in 2015.

SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes: "Despite export challenges in some key markets such as Russia and China, foreign demand for British-built cars has been strong, reaching record export levels in the past year.

"Europe is our biggest trading partner and the UK's membership of the European Union is vital for the automotive sector in order to secure future growth and jobs."


Production of the Mini rose by 12.4% last year to 201,000 and Toyota produced 190,000 cars, up 10.4%.

Vauxhall's production rose by 9.5% to 85,000, and Jaguar Land Rover saw a 9% rise to 489,000.

However, Nissan recorded a 4.7% reduction, to 476,000, and Honda was down by 2%, to 119,000).
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35368047



Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: blonk on July 11, 2016, 11:48:39 PM
What are the potential consequences if the EU collapses and who will that benefit?
27 countries and their people will all benefit by...
* 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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alfie on July 12, 2016, 09:03:48 AM
27 countries and their people will all benefit by...
* 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.... &%+((
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 12, 2016, 10:14:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alfie on July 12, 2016, 10:20:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 12, 2016, 11:37:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Alfie on July 12, 2016, 12:00:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: Carana on July 12, 2016, 12:50:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: Should There Have been An Upper Age Limit For Voters?
Post by: G-Unit on July 12, 2016, 01:18:01 PM
What does "sovereignty" actually mean in the context of 2016?

It's what we would be likely to lose if the EU's plans for closer integration were to include the UK. If the UK chose not to partake in closer integration we would not be fully committed members. Our balancing act of being in but not really was surely not sustainable long-term anyway?