manxman1980 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Rog said: That was funny! My explanation for excluding first generation immigrants was perfectly clear. There would be a high probability that they would vote based not on the good of the UK but their own vested interest. BREXIT supporters had a vested interest too. The good of the UK. In my opinion the voting age in the referendum should have been 16 and EU Nationals resident in the UK should have been allowed a vote. There is precedent for allowing EU nationals to vote in referendums in the UK. Please see the referendum on Scottish Independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: In my opinion the voting age in the referendum should have been 16 and EU Nationals resident in the UK should have been allowed a vote. There is precedent for allowing EU nationals to vote in referendums in the UK. Please see the referendum on Scottish Independence. Scotland is part of the UK, not representative of the UK. I do understand the argument for allowing children of 16 to have had a say in the UK referendum but believe it would have been wrong. They just don't have the breadth of knowledge or experience of life at that age or for that matter under 25 as I pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rog said: children of 16 Old enough to join the forces and smoke, they aren't children and therefore should be old enough to vote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said: Old enough to join the forces and smoke, they aren't children and therefore should be old enough to vote. I get your point but smoking is 18 in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said: Old enough to join the forces and smoke, they aren't children and therefore should be old enough to vote. It doesn't follow. If they're daft enough to do either that clearly shows they are not yet fit to vote, especially not where the future of the UK is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: I get your point but smoking is 18 in the UK. Its 18 to buy buy I believe you can still smoke over 16. Possible I was thinking of the lottery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Rog said: Scotland is part of the UK, not representative of the UK. I never said Scotland was representative of the UK. I said that there was precedent within the UK (Scotland) for allowing EU Nationals residing in the UK to vote in a referendum within the UK (I.e. the one on Scottish Independence). 2 hours ago, Rog said: I do understand the argument for allowing children of 16 to have had a say in the UK referendum but believe it would have been wrong. They just don't have the breadth of knowledge or experience of life at that age or for that matter under 25 as I pointed out. 25 is just another arbitrary line in the sand though. Using that age you deny those who are legally allowed to drive, smoke, drink, marry, have children, vote in all other elections, join the armed services, take out loans and mortgages all because you don't think they have a breadth of knowledge or experience to have voted on the UK's membership of the EU. As others have said you are denying people a vote. You may as well say only land owners could vote as they own the UK. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 33 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: I never said Scotland was representative of the UK. I said that there was precedent within the UK (Scotland) for allowing EU Nationals residing in the UK to vote in a referendum within the UK (I.e. the one on Scottish Independence). 25 is just another arbitrary line in the sand though. Using that age you deny those who are legally allowed to drive, smoke, drink, marry, have children, vote in all other elections, join the armed services, take out loans and mortgages all because you don't think they have a breadth of knowledge or experience to have voted on the UK's membership of the EU. As others have said you are denying people a vote. You may as well say only land owners could vote as they own the UK. The Scottish vote to which you refer was a local thing and so did not set a precedent for the UK as a whole. My suggestion of a "cut in age" of 25 is simply my opinion and the reason that I think it would make sense. As for land owner, in MY opinion people who are unemployed should not get a vote in by-elections of general elections. Why should they have a say in who governs the country? Those who pay taxes should be those who call the tune. Personally I'm of the opinion that some form of political education should be completed before a vote in the governing of the UK is granted. No highly complex thing but evidence that people who vote have at least some understanding of just what it is that they are voting on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Further restricting who is allowed to vote and enforced education on voting. You are a nutcase, good job you're not in charge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: Further restricting who is allowed to vote and enforced education on voting. You are a nutcase, good job you're not in charge. So what is wrong with my thoughts on how better governments might be elected? It's nothing more than putting up some straw men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 47 minutes ago, Rog said: So what is wrong with my thoughts on how better governments might be elected? It's nothing more than putting up some straw men. What's wrong? Applying your ideas would mean throwing away years of struggle by the people of the UK to win the right to vote. Think the suffragettes, the Peterloo Massacre etc. Better Governments will be elected via scrapping first past the post and introducing proportional representation. That alone would lead to a wider engagement in elections and politics within the population. Then change Westminster from confrontational "two sides" (Government v opposition) and introduce a more co-operative approach where the key focus is the well being of the nation and its population and not trying to win votes at the next election. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, manxman1980 said: What's wrong? Applying your ideas would mean throwing away years of struggle by the people of the UK to win the right to vote. Think the suffragettes, the Peterloo Massacre etc. Better Governments will be elected via scrapping first past the post and introducing proportional representation. That alone would lead to a wider engagement in elections and politics within the population. Then change Westminster from confrontational "two sides" (Government v opposition) and introduce a more co-operative approach where the key focus is the well being of the nation and its population and not trying to win votes at the next election. I absolutely agree about the first past the post system being very wrong and since the subtle changing of the committee stages to stack the committee membership on a purely political basis, usually by the government of the day to ensure any findings were very pro government wants, any argument that all interests would be included has fallen by the wayside. The Westminster confrontational model is also waaay past its use by date but what to replace it with? Almost anything is my view but any form of coalition is almost always basically at least potentially unstable and can result in small parties having power in government far beyond that which is justified by the percentage of vote they take - Israel is a classic example. I'd be interested to read other opinions of what to replace the now well broken Westminster system with. Going to your first point re universal suffrage - what is wrong with looking for a way to ensure that people being granted suffrage understand the results of the choice they make are likely to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rog said: Going to your first point re universal suffrage - what is wrong with looking for a way to ensure that people being granted suffrage understand the results of the choice they make are likely to be? Nothing wrong with education but that MUST be free from Political influence/interference. I am sure we can both agree that is highly unlikely to happen. I wondered when Israel would be mentioned.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 5 hours ago, manxman1980 said: In my opinion the voting age in the referendum should have been 16 and EU Nationals resident in the UK should have been allowed a vote. There is precedent for allowing EU nationals to vote in referendums in the UK. Please see the referendum on Scottish Independence. No other EU state allows EU citizens to participate in national votes. The referendum in Scotland was not a national vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: Nothing wrong with education but that MUST be free from Political influence/interference. I am sure we can both agree that is highly unlikely to happen. I wondered when Israel would be mentioned.... Israel is a classic example of minority parties having power in government far beyond their support from the electorate when coalition governments are in office. Edited to add - I absolutely agree about education in politics should be apolitical which then brings in the highly politicized content in so many of our schools and places of tertiary education today. Edited January 21, 2020 by Rog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.