So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[manxman1980]

8 minutes ago, woolley said:

No other EU state allows EU citizens to participate in national votes. The referendum in Scotland was not a national vote.

The Scottish referendum arguably set a UK precedent in referendums relating to sovereignty...

[Rog]

2 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The Scottish referendum arguably set a UK precedent in referendums relating to sovereignty...

I disagree. It was not a UK wide referendum, I for one wish it had been.  My guess is the result would have been massively in favour of Scotland becoming independent from England.  Totally independent.

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The Scottish referendum arguably set a UK precedent in referendums relating to sovereignty...

No. Because it wasn't a national vote. And as I said, no other EU state allows foreigners to vote in national elections. It's completely illogical.

[manxman1980]

11 minutes ago, Rog said:

I disagree. It was not a UK wide referendum, I for one wish it had been.  My guess is the result would have been massively in favour of Scotland becoming independent from England.  Totally independent.

And right now the Scottish population would be celebrating that independence. 

Better to govern yourself than be governed by a "foreign" Government.

10 minutes ago, woolley said:

No. Because it wasn't a national vote. And as I said, no other EU state allows foreigners to vote in national elections. It's completely illogical.

Decisions in the Scottish Courts can bind the English and Welsh Courts.  

Be honest with yourself, the reason that EU Nationals were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum was because it tilted the balance in favour of Scotland remaining in the UK.  EU Nationals living in Scotland were not going to vote in favour of leaving the UK and therefore the EU.  Do you remember that threat?  A vote for Scottish Independence means leaving the EU?  I wonder why some Scottish nationals are feeling really pissed off right now. 

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 

Decisions in the Scottish Courts can bind the English and Welsh Courts.  

 

Only if the Scottish Court decision  is in the Supreme Court, which is the only U.K. court.

Otherwise they are persuasive, only.

[Rog]

13 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

And right now the Scottish population would be celebrating that independence. 

Better to govern yourself than be governed by a "foreign" Government.

Decisions in the Scottish Courts can bind the English and Welsh Courts.  

Be honest with yourself, the reason that EU Nationals were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum was because it tilted the balance in favour of Scotland remaining in the UK.  EU Nationals living in Scotland were not going to vote in favour of leaving the UK and therefore the EU.  Do you remember that threat?  A vote for Scottish Independence means leaving the EU?  I wonder why some Scottish nationals are feeling really pissed off right now. 

Re your first point - that is precisely why we voted for BREXIT.

[manxman1980]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Only if the Scottish Court decision  is in the Supreme Court, which is the only U.K. court.

Otherwise they are persuasive, only.

Thanks John.  I stand corrected on the detail in relation to the courts.

[manxman1980]

3 minutes ago, Rog said:

Re your first point - that is precisely why we voted for BREXIT.

Where did I put my irony metre?? 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

Why is it democratically legitimate for somebody to argue that the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16, but then claim that somebody is wrong to argue that it should be raised from 18 to 30 (whatever)?

In a democracy, both points of view should be valid arguments to be put forward for debate without the proposer being shot down for having the view, no?

[mojomonkey]

4 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Why is it democratically legitimate for somebody to argue that the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16, but then claim that somebody is wrong to argue that it should be raised from 18 to 30 (whatever)?

In a democracy, both points of view should be valid arguments to be put forward for debate without the proposer being shot down for having the view, no?

Because it has been long accepted that you become an adult at 18. Why should adults be denied democratic rights for 12 (or how ever many) years?

 

Do you think the voting age shout be increased?

[manxman1980]

21 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Why is it democratically legitimate for somebody to argue that the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16, but then claim that somebody is wrong to argue that it should be raised from 18 to 30 (whatever)?

In a democracy, both points of view should be valid arguments to be put forward for debate without the proposer being shot down for having the view, no?

My reasoning for reducing the voting age, to the same as the Isle of Man by the way, is just as valid as Rog arguing for an increase to 25.

I know as well as Rog does that shifting the voting age can have an impact on results.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

27 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

Because it has been long accepted that you become an adult at 18. Why should adults be denied democratic rights for 12 (or how ever many) years?

 

Do you think the voting age shout be increased?

No, I do not think it should be increased, I believe that 18 is about right. But neither do I think that it should be decreased to 16 simply to suit the short term needs of Scottish Nationalists, Corbynistas, or Remainers.

But, above all of that, I would wish to defend the right for any legitimate person to express their views on the subject be they for raising the age, lowering the age, or maintaining the age.

I do not agree with many of Rog's view's - but I defend to the hilt his right to express them without undue and overpowering shouting down.

The political pendulum is swinging (as it always does and always will) - The days when so-called  'liberal democrats' (small ld) can shout down the democratic views of others whilst claiming the moral high ground are coming to an end - and the pendulous swing is happening faster than any other time in my 50 years of following politics.

The surprising thing to me, is just how slow those Ld's, The Labour party, the BBC et al are at reading the runes - the British electorate have been awakened and have spoken (probably for the first time since 1979) - heaven help those who choose to ignore them - In my humble opinion, the game has changed, really changed, big style.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[mojomonkey]

I don't think it should be lowered to 16 either, 18 seems the right age to me.

 

Sorry, I am very tolerant but many of Rog's views are abhorrent, I'm pretty sure he says a lot of them purely for effect though.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

8 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

@Manximus

I'd be perfectly happy for the island to have freedom of movement along the principles of, say,  Spain.

The right there is to stay, simply as a visitor, for 90 days. More than that, you must apply and receive paperwork to stay. That right is dependent on your ability to prove medical insurance and adequate income to survive without resorting to their welfare. That means working or being rich enough or being past your state's pensionable age.

There is an indirect ID system there called NIE. It is technically possible to live without it but it would be a very simple life probably eg selling handbags to tourists on Marbella sea front.. E.g. I ordered just a tyre from Euromaster yesterday and that was only possible by quoting my NIE. Anything official requires NIE. Renting or buying property requires NIE. 

Note Spain is an EU member state, yet we want to leave because the EU allegedly forces us to accept migrants that are not accepted by Spain. 

What's wrong with all that unless you have other agenda?

There is (in my opinion) absolutely nothing wrong with Spain's position as you describe. They have their rules, they want to exercise control over immigration, and they find that they are able to do so whilst being a member of the EU - absolutely fine by me.

I therefore claim that, as the EU exercises their right to control, Spain exercises their right to control, each as they see fit, then what is Nationalist, Racist, or Populist about the UK wishing to exercise a similar right to control as the Uk sees fit other than that control is not exercised under the guise of the EU? 

Why is Spanish and EU control ok but British control nationalist, racist or populist? Australia and NZ exercise far stricter controls than the UK is proposing - are they, as New World countries built almost entirely on immigration racist, nationalist, populist. What would the Chinese / Asian population of Australia make of that claim?

(Stands by for a blast of didgeridoo).

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[manxman1980]

@Manximus Aururaneus

The UK Government could have imposed rules and conditions but chose not to do so.

They then blamed the whole thing on the EU, which is what Johnson built his whole career on.