Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 10 2017, 10:11 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

It''s currently 18, as you know - which is the age you can vote, and marry without parental consent, amongst other things - but should it be raised, lowered, or left where it is?

Posted by: Qassändra Oct 11 2017, 07:26 AM

It should be left where it is but I would've put it at 21 if I were starting from scratch.

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 11 2017, 07:57 AM

I'm happy with it being 18.

I certainly wouldn't have been comfortable with the legal responsibility that the AOM requires, at age 16.

It was 21 in the UK until 1970.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 11 2017, 08:52 AM

The current situation is a bit of an illogical mess. At 16 you can have sex but you cannot get married (without parental consent), see an X-Rated film (possibly rated for its sexual content) or buy an alcoholic drink. You can join the armed forces so, in the words of the song "You're old enough to kill but not for voting".

My preference would be for 16 to be the default age with some exceptions. For example, I would keep the age fro driving a car at 17.

Just for the record, I know some things are different in Scotland.

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 11 2017, 09:37 AM

The problem is, there's no objective way of measuring emotional/intellectual maturity, so while some people will be mature enough to assume adult responsibilities at 16, there are others who can't handle them even at 21 (some never!), so 18 seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 11 2017, 09:42 AM

Or even film yourself having sex at 16-17, even if you are married to the co-participant.

BTW, I would love to see a test case of the above scenario, as it would expose the absurdity of *that* law!

Posted by: Liаm Oct 11 2017, 09:45 AM

There are some benefits to it being 16, but then equally some peoppe around me dont know how to vote etc now in their early 20s I agree 18 is the sort of middle ground that fits well enough, if it was 16 I'd want much better political education in schools so that everyone was well equipped to vote and make the decisions. Obviously with other things it's a lot harder to judge.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner Oct 11 2017, 10:41 AM

There are things where 18 feels correct. I would like voting to be lowered nationally to 16 though.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 Oct 11 2017, 11:51 AM

I have never heard of AoM before, so I will vote 18.

For voting, 14, 15 or 16.

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 11 2017, 02:00 PM

I certainly wouldn't suggest as low as 14 - too little life experience at that age.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 Oct 11 2017, 03:44 PM

I am.not so sure about that. I think 14/15/16, with good civic classes, will be prepared to vote - thiugh how many would bother to exercise that right is another question entirely

Posted by: DANKENSTEIN Oct 11 2017, 04:05 PM

14 year olds are definitely not mature enough to vote.

I'd keep it at 18 for the time being, but reduce it to 16 if schools gave a good non biased political education.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 Oct 11 2017, 04:29 PM

So if there was an election when someone is 17, they have no say for 5 more years?

At least at 16 it incorporates more, including those just not quite 18, and if someone is ALMOST 16, well at 21 they can vote and bw represented, rather than at 23.

Posted by: DANKENSTEIN Oct 11 2017, 04:30 PM

Not necessarily, let's not forget snap elections can easily be called...

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 Oct 11 2017, 04:31 PM

Not very often

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 11 2017, 04:34 PM

There's always going to be someone just to young to vote in a GE whatever age it is set at - I was 17y10m in 1983 when Thatcher was re-elected.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 Oct 11 2017, 04:43 PM

Ew

Yes and taking voting age down down gives more civic power to people in the longrun

Posted by: Brett-Butler Oct 11 2017, 05:00 PM

18 and 18. Don't really feel inclined to want to change things as it stands

Are X-rated films still a thing? I thought they were replaced by the "18" rating here (unless you're referring to some kind of film that my innocent little mind cannot comprehend).

The driving age of 17 seems a bit of an anomaly the more I think about it - you'd think that it would be something that would be either 16 or 18, and I can't think of any other things that become permissible at 17. It's 16 in America and some other countries, so could see the argument in reducing it to that age.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Oct 11 2017, 05:13 PM

I'm old-fashioned so I still think of X-rated films

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 12 2017, 06:59 AM

Why 14, BTW?

Posted by: FreddyVsJupiter Oct 12 2017, 08:27 AM

21 seems ridiculously old. Who would want to extend the age someone's considered a child and dependent? Then you would end up with people trapped longer and longer in eternal limbo like in America, not exactly healthy.

Posted by: Soy Adrián Oct 12 2017, 08:38 AM

There's a theoretical argument for lowering it to the age of criminal responsibility (which I believe is 10 or 11?) but it's obviously way, way off. I don't see a problem with it being 16.

Posted by: vidcapper Oct 12 2017, 09:20 AM

Presumably that was why it was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1970...

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 Oct 12 2017, 10:33 AM

I think that age should be raised and the voting age dropped.

Why 14 for voting?

I had a good grasp of politics by then, and I think with unbiased civic classes most pwoplw that age could do too.

Posted by: Soy Adrián Oct 12 2017, 01:09 PM

I didn't know you were 13.

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 11 2018, 07:23 AM

Who would teach these civics classes you propose, and how could you ensure they were truly unbiased?

getting back to the issue of voting age :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5484275/Sixth-form-colleges-join-campaign-16-year-olds-vote.html

Sixth-form colleges back campaign for 16-year-olds to get the vote as private member's bill goes through Parliament

Association of Colleges wants the Government to lower the voting age from 18
This would create up to 1.5m new voters statistically more likely to vote Labour
The move was put forward in a private member’s Bill by Labour MP Peter Kyle

********************

Call me cynical if you like, but I suspect Labour wouldn't be pressing for votes for 16yo's if they thought thy'd gain no advantage from it...

Posted by: Iz Mar 11 2018, 02:20 PM

Well, no shit.

The Conservatives will seek to block it for precisely the opposite reason, no matter the arguments for and against, both sides will be set because of what they stand to lose or gain.

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 12 2018, 07:06 AM

But surely the case should not be contaminated by party politics - shouldn't it be based on whether 16-17yo's are mature enough, emotionally and otherwise, to make rational decisions without being overly influenced by their peers/parents/teachers, etc?

Also, the concerns of teenagers can be very different to those of their parents and grandparents, especially in financial areas. Teens rarely have to consider supporting anyone but themselves, so they have little experience in financial responsibility, which is hardly the best basis for deciding who should have that responsibility for the whole country.

[apologies if that sounds too patronizing]

Posted by: Iz Mar 12 2018, 03:54 PM

Well it shouldn't, but it will be because of how directly it correlates to numbers of votes for one side of the other.

And I don't buy your line of thought. Either teens are influenced by their parents, or they have different concerns. Which is it? Is either a good argument for letting them vote or not? Because we shouldn't be basing it on what they are likely to vote, more whether it's right to give them the opportunity.

The second point, that teenagers are inexperienced in life is a better point. However, some teenagers have to support themselves and consider financial responsibility, more than some adults. It's also a very good time to introduce them to politics and encourage them to start thinking about what they think is best for the country, thinking for themselves, learning how to disseminate the news, making it matter to them. Go through a couple of years of being politically aware but not being able to partake and the risk of apathy forever is much greater.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef Mar 12 2018, 08:02 PM

At least teenagers aren't braiwnashed by the Murdoch press.

In that aspect, their votes are less indoctrinated anyway.

Yeah, Tories SHOULD support it, but politics is corrupt af right now, all about money and the Tories trying to stay on indefinitely as a One Party State.

Posted by: Iz Mar 12 2018, 10:25 PM

citation please

Age groups aren't a factor in indoctrination, and you're just opening yourself right up to Vidcapper saying that the other side brainwashes as well. I mean, doesn't everyone know the intelligent teenagers go to the left because it's so obviously correct and anyone who goes to the right is a heartless moron?

In fact, what we need to do is not turn this into a left-right thing and give these prospective people the impression that politics is inherently polarised. Because it's not. It shouldn't be. It's far more nuanced than the evil Tories tosh you're spouting, however evil they may actually be.

I also don't necessarily disagree with your last point but I also don't think that the Tories trying to stay in power is a corrupt move, it's sensible for them. Would you, in power, sign off on a move that has a not insignificant chance of kicking you out of power?

Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 13 2018, 12:00 AM

There has always been a discrepancy between the votes of the over-65s and the under-25s, but that difference is now extraordinarily large. Isn't that something all parties should be concerned about?

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 13 2018, 07:01 AM

There's also the issue of turnout - the younger voters are, the lower it tends to be, and that is likely to be even more the case of 16-17yo's. That isn't a case for not letting them vote, of course - but it does weaken the argument.



I doubt any of us really want to get into which is more brainwashy - Murdoch-owned media or political correctness...




No-one disputes that younger voters are more left-leaning, but the idea that only older voters are susceptible to media brainwashing is just absurd - history suggests just the opposite, in fact.



Well, if both sides would stop making unrealistic promises in the manifestos, that would help...

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef Mar 13 2018, 05:59 PM

Check the studies. The youth do not consume the Murdoch print media like the older generations. Murdoch's print empire is failing, and the Sun and Daily Mail are always bleating on about millennials because of that (and because we don't trust a word printed by them). The only consumption is passive headline reading, but with falling circulation, that's not a large factor; the BBC always reports on the right wing papers to disseminate them, however. It does NOT offer a fair counterbalance by ever mentioning that there are more right-wing owned papers, or by reporting on smaller, left wing papers, of course. So what I'm saying is teenagers not being affected by this brainwashing, as much, and because the left is actually morally superior, let's not deny it here, then teenagers are not going to flock to the right.

Vidcapper, when Labour is privatising the NHS BY STEALTH, cutting benefits, being completely incompetent and unscrupulously for the rich, in bed with the rich, accepting millions from Russian oligarchs then being surprised when Russia does something so brazen on UK soil - well, accept their money and put the country up for sale! - then you can say 'lesser of two evils'. But as it happens, there is only one evil. It's the alt right.

No, not necessarily. The Tories are master manipulators - they have an attack-dog press waiting and ready to promote them at every opportunity, spread lies, spread defamation, all in bed together. Tories are also thinking about compulsory ID voting - VILE. This is what Republicans do to restrict access to the vote. That is not democratic. Anyone who suggests the idea does not believe in democracy. Or in the last election, when POSTAL VOTES in some key marginals with a lot of students went missing? Hmm. Or like in Newcastle, where some students who went to polling stations were TURNED AWAY. That looks less like politics as usual and more like One Party State politics.

It would help if the Tories even BOTHERED to make a manifesto that isn't just simpering sound bites for the press with 0 figures and stuff like 'fox hunting!' 'rich people!' 'yeah!' It's like a page taken out from the right wing oligarch's playbook.

Posted by: danG Mar 13 2018, 06:12 PM

Two things.

People generally read what supports their own views no matter their age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

A lot of teenagers *are* flocking to the right.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/17/how-modern-teenagers-are-rebelling-against-their-parents-by-bein/

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef Mar 13 2018, 06:36 PM

From what I heard, that study was flawed.

The culture war has been won. The oldest generation Zs went for Hillary Clinton in record numbers, but were part of the bread and butter supporting Sanders. Like I said, that ONE study is demonstrably flawed by it not reflecting reality. They are more conservative in the sense of being risk adverse, alcohol, tobacco, but in everything else they are MORE liberal than my (so far the MOST LIBERAL EVER and most socially developed EVER) generation. In America, Gen Z is EVEN LESS CHRISTIAN THAN MILLENNIALS and the most non-Christian demographic YET. That removes them from pulpit politics.

However, those few youth who move towards the right, which is becoming more and more alt right anyway, do so due to 'cool' right-wing figures ONLINE, not due to the Murdoch press.

Confirmation bias. 1. This is affected by the preponderance of right wing propaganda pieces, i.e the press. 2. Without the background brainwashing from the right, there would be less confirmation bias in the first place.

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 14 2018, 06:33 AM

Oh yeah, Joseph Stalin was a real saint...



To be fair, the Tories know who their supporters are, so why wouldn't they create a manifesto that appeals to them?

Posted by: vidcapper May 31 2018, 06:50 AM

Interesting article in the Guardian...

Teenagers’ brains not ready for GCSEs, says neuroscientist

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/29/teenagers-brains-not-ready-for-gcses-says-neuroscientist

*****************

Not ready for exams at 16, but ready to *vote* at 16, or so some people claim...

Posted by: Popchartfreak May 31 2018, 08:15 AM

I would argue 60 years of examples of teens passing GCSE's kind of refutes any claims to the contrary by one man flogging a book.

But hey good of you to suggest it as an excuse to discredit and suggest they dont get the vote at 16. Almost as if you're afraid of something.....

Posted by: vidcapper May 31 2018, 09:11 AM

I'm not suggesting it, I am saying it outright - I don't think 16-17yo's should be allowed to vote - IMO they can be too easily swayed by parental/peer/media pressure at that age.

Posted by: Queef of Peace May 31 2018, 10:35 AM

I'd suggest constant stress is too much for youngsters' brains, rather than the content.

They are more informed than the 60 year olds who get their opinion from the BBTory, Daily Mail, etc. Or are we all supposed to believe anti-semitisim in the Labour party just happened to DISAPPEAR after the local elections? Not a single story on it even on the BBC afterwards. Ho hmm. Muslim Council wanted an investigation into Tory anti-semitism too, but BBC ignored that. With teenagers eschewing the biased media and print, they are likely better informed than those who partake of it!!

Voting age should be taken way down, especially since the Tories like authoritarian slavish decisions following simple binary split polls that will affect us for years to come.

Posted by: Queef of Peace May 31 2018, 10:36 AM

Yeah, unlike the EXTREMELY BIASED UK right wing media has absolutely NOOO influence on people and convinces millions who probably shouldn't vote Tory to um vote for the Landed Gentry

Voting should be from 15 at the latest

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner May 31 2018, 10:58 AM

As opposed to the full grown adults who just parrot verbatim lies from the Mail and Sun?

Posted by: vidcapper May 31 2018, 11:02 AM

That's about the most predictable response I've ever seen here.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 6 2018, 09:47 AM

You realise there's no guarantee they'll see things the 'right' way, no matter how carefully/impartially things are explained to them?

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 6 2018, 11:45 AM

So what you want is for everyone to be denied a vote until they can prove they arent swayed by things such as "facts" (parents who hold an opinion are presumably old enough to have reached that conclusion, so all they are doing - assuming 16-year-olds want to be just like their parents (which isn't my experience of 16-year-olds throughout my life, I must say) - is parroting the thoughts of someone who has already thought about the issues, provided eveidence or just made up their mind based on nothing much. In other words, what EVERYONE WHO VOTES DOES!

You were provided with reasonable facts on the referendum but still chose to ignore them, so one might argue older people who live in rose-tinted fantasies of a past that never existed should also be prevented from voting.

Personally I'd prefer an IQ test to stop morons voting on things they have no understanding of, but hey that would be just as undemocratic and just as wrong.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 6 2018, 01:38 PM

Has anyone ever told you you have a rather aggressive posting style?

Since it is clearly not possible to quantify something as subjective as 'maturity to vote', that's why we set an arbitrary age, independent of IQ, social status, gender, race, etc. After all, since everyone has to abide by the choices made, therefore everyone must be allowed input into them, regardless of what one may think of their motivations.

We were presented with two sides of an argument, I merely picked the one I supported - as is my prerogative. No-one can know for *certain* whether it was the right or wrong decision until many years down the line, but that's not a reason to not put the question in the first place. In any case, it's simply not a question that could have been dodged forever.



I'm glad to hear that, as you've often given the impression that you think Leavers votes should be discounted simply because you disagree with their choice.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 6 2018, 07:37 PM

Thanks. I like Upper Case to make a point so it's not lost on whoever I'm saying it to.

My that was a long sentence about maturity. Glad you think it is difficult to quantify. That means it is open to argument. Which we are doing. I can certainly vouch then many many older people have no maturity, interest in or knowledge of, politics or how things work, and the consequences of their votes - yet still they vote. Kind of negates your arguments that 17-year-olds are too immature. I'd say they are just as smart or dumb as their equivalent elders.

Hmmm why do you assume that my comment on IQ's is related in any way to the referendum result? We are talking about age of voting, and I specifically did not mention it. I even put a new paragraph and a large space between my previous comment on your capacity to not have good judgement when it comes to deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying using the referendum as an example. Please feel free to reply in the EU thread though, and keep this one free for comments about our feeble-minded mid-teens, many of whom are carers for disabled parents, taking advanced exams, learning to drive, working part-time, analysing Shakespeare, and getting ready for university amongst other worthless pursuits that their poor immature brains can cope with as opposed to the complex concepts involved in realising that Tories don't give a shit about them or poor people, among many others....*

(* or that they do care about them as they walk out of expensive Academies with swathes of A's & B's)

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 7 2018, 05:45 AM

Two sentences, actually.

But there is another factor - under 18's are not adults legally - they can't be tried as adults, or bear full responsibility for contracts they sign, to name two. IF they want the right to vote at 16, then the above (and other) legal protections must end.

It seemed a reasonable inference.



Like drinking themselves into oblivion, snorting drugs, or driving like they're playing a video game?

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 7 2018, 12:13 PM

Just like older people then. I see no difference between coke-snorting 17 year olds (other than where do they get the money from?) and coke-snorting 60-year-olds (assuming they somehow have managed to live that long). Surely your argument should therefore logically be that ADDICTS should be denied the vote rather than smart 17-year-olds who know more than a large percentage of adults?

I was under the impression that committing crimes at 16 or 17 still got you locked up. You can have sex and raise children. many other things too, like driving. Perhaps you could convince me otherwise?

The main argument with regard to contracts is to prove financial responsibility, not whether they know anything about politics. You try getting a mortgage when you've defaulted on credit card loans for example, no matter how old you are. If you havent a job at 17 why would anyone give you contracts for anything? If you have a full-time job at 16 or 17 then you should be treated exactly equal as those who are older in every way.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 7 2018, 01:30 PM

1. I'm not saying their aren't *some* irresponsible older people, only that they form a far smaller proportion of their age group than teenagers. Responsibility is something you learn mainly through experience and younger people need time to develop that.

2. Yes, but not in adult prisons, and they generally get lighter sentences too. Kids can produce children as young as 11 or 12, so by your logic, we should let *them* vote, too.

3. Why are you so keen on letting 16-17's vote anyway - why not 14-15's, or even 5-6's?

Posted by: kindagood Jun 20 2018, 02:11 PM

I'm sure in Scotland the age of majority is 16. If it works there why not in the rest of the UK

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 20 2018, 02:27 PM

Are 16-17's in Scotland considered full adults in the eyes of the law, or are there some areas in which they are treated differently than over-18's?

Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 20 2018, 02:39 PM

I saw that smarmy Tory Toff Tom Harwood earlier this year with his pathetic 'votes at 12' t-shirt trying to discredit and devalue the whole debate around votes at 16, for which I have become increasingly in favour of over the past few years. The arguments that are most persuasive (to me at least) are how engaged and politically active it made the 16 and 17 year-olds when it was brought in for the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014. Surely that's got to be a good thing, no?

Posted by: Queef of Skreech Jun 20 2018, 02:44 PM

I despise those smarmy toffs. I think people should get the vote at 14, but babysteps with the Tory Toffs I suppose. 16 would be a start.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 20 2018, 02:51 PM

But there's an anomaly here : from what I read, 75% of newly enfranchised 16-17yo's voted, but only 54% of 18-24's. I doubt 16-17's would be *more* politically aware than 18-24's, so that begs an explanation.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/12/many-16-17-year-olds-voted/

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 20 2018, 02:54 PM

I can just about see the arguments for 16-17's voting, even though it is clearly proposed mainly for political reasons - but how can you justify 14-15 yo's?

Posted by: Queef of Skreech Jun 20 2018, 02:54 PM

Because they were given the vote for the first time, a novel concept in history, they would then be more likely to use it.

Which begs the question: why haven't they been given it? One reason: the Tory right wing coup continues. The same reason why they are trialling the Republican denial of vote strategies to discourage the poor and time poor from voting.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 20 2018, 02:58 PM

But what's to stop them slipping into apathy, once the novelty wears off?



There is no 'right-wing coup' - the Tories were *democratically* elected.

Posted by: Queef of Skreech Jun 20 2018, 03:06 PM

Through the media propaganda machine, gerrymandering and an antiquated system and through a billion pounds bribe to Northern Ireland. Brexit, a flimsy majority and article 50 brought up by MAD MAY HERSELF AND NOT PARLIAMENT, is part of this coup.

Nothing. But doesn't matter. The rest of the population has also been left apathetic by neoliberal plutocrats ruining democracy. Those who are interested will use their votes. It doesn't matter if it enfranchises 1, 1000 or a million. What matters is they have the right.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 21 2018, 05:39 AM

What gerrymandering? There's been no significant change to the system for a long time.

The so called 'bribe' happened *after* the election, and therefore cannot have affected the result. I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Labour could not have formed a gov't without the help of the DUP either, and they would also have had to offer bribes to every smaller party, not just one...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 21 2018, 08:32 PM

There you go again justifying something by invoking a hypothetical worse situation. Habit is SO difficult to break...

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 22 2018, 05:39 AM

I'm surprised to hear to admit that a Labour lead minority coalition would be worse then a Tory one...

Seriously though, my comment was mainly directed at those like Mr 'Queef' who appear to see anything less than an overall Tory majority, as depriving them of the authority to govern, regardless of how many fewer seats their main opponents won.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 22 2018, 07:55 AM

You were making the hypothetical worse alternative a fake reality not me.

The fact is, they bought off their government majority and are now being blackmailed by it. That is no authority. The coalition was a coalition, so that had authority. Fairly simple difference. Your hypothetical reality assumes that the DUP would also have been bought off when Corbyn's sympathies have always been anti-DUP and that he would have been incapable of creating a parliamentary coalition with everyone else except Tories and DUP, which is a much more likely scenario were the Labour/Tory seats numbers reversed.

AS I keep saying, making stuff up when you can't argue any other way but still want to justify something that is fact.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 22 2018, 09:05 AM

If the numbers were revered, Labour wouldn't have needed the DUP - the SNP, PC or LD might have been enough - however my scenario was based on the 2017 number of seats, as follows

Tories 318

Lab 262 + SNP 35 + LD 12 + PC 4 +2 others = 315

Therefore they'd need DUP support (as SF don't take up their HoC seats)

Hope that clarifies my scenario?

***********************

Going off at a complete tangent - has anyone here worked out what name I go under for Daily Mail comments - clue : it's not vidcapper

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 22 2018, 09:52 PM

So, you're claiming something which could theoretically have taken place but didn't as proof that Labour would have been just as guilty of buying votes to gain power. Except that they didn't. Which makes your argument nonsense.

Frank? Frank's a nice name....

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 23 2018, 05:47 AM

Not necessarily -had the Tories been unable to persuade the DUP to play ball, it would then have been up to Labour to try & form a gov't instead.



Unfortunately, the Mail's Comments section are too moderated for me to be really frank.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 24 2018, 06:43 PM

Were you the one on the DM site to suggest that everyone on yesterday's march should be charged with treason?

Posted by: Queef of Skreech Jun 24 2018, 06:46 PM

By that logic, ALL the DailyMailers should have been charged with treason the second they opened their thick brainwashed gobs about Brexit, seeing as the 70s produced an IN vote with a MASSIVE country-wide majority.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 25 2018, 06:14 AM

I'm sure you'll be most disappointed to find out that *wasn't* me.



1. The EEC then was a far different, and less intrusive organisation than the EU now.

2. If a 41yo referendum result should be be respected, then why not a 2yo one? Or perhaps it could be argued that - if a 34% margin should be respected for 41 years, then a 4% one should be respected for 4/34 * 41 years = ~4 years?

Posted by: Queef of Skreech Jun 25 2018, 09:44 AM

Fine. Then a second people's vote is needed, which it is, unless we just cancel this farce, under that maths.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 25 2018, 10:13 AM

Disappointed? Not at all I expect. Surprised, maybe

The EEC referendum was debated calmly and honestly and people knew what they were voting for, it was factual. Our governments variously agreed through our Parliament to every change since then, democratically.

The 2016 referendum wasn't based on facts, it was hyperbole and lies and assumptions and guesses. Completely different to the first one. Giving people a final say on FACTS is not anti-democratic given the utterly undemocratic bullshit that was claimed in the 2016 referendum. That Brexiters don't see that is not surprising because they had to lie through their teeth to get their own way.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 25 2018, 10:37 AM

Of course, that 4 years won't be until after the current process is complete...

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 25 2018, 10:44 AM

And therein lies a major part of the problem - our governments may have agreed the changes, but *voters* were not given a say on it. That was certainly one of the main reasons I become a Eurosceptic.

[

But what is to stop a follow-up referendum turning into exactly the same sort of slanging match? Any attempt to regulate the campaign would play right into Leave's hands - they would certainly make a big issue of 'ignoring the democratic result' of the 2016 vote.

Posted by: Queef of Skreech Jun 25 2018, 10:49 AM

But that would be a fallacious argument as the vote was 50/50 with two nations of four voting the opposite way? It was an advisory poll with no safeguards such as a 3 nation lock or 66% because it was advisory and non-binding. Such referenda have been ignored in other countries before on such tiny winning margins, sooo

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 25 2018, 10:58 AM

And people claim *my* arguments are repetitive...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner Jun 25 2018, 11:19 AM

Repetitive Michael may be, but at least it's factual

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 26 2018, 05:35 AM

Queef's real name is Michael?

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 26 2018, 11:51 AM

...and I keep saying, if the agreement is in print for all to see, there can be no lies. You can make claims that such and such a paragraph gives the EU too much power, or such & such will make border crossings easy or hard, or bananas are agreed to be bendy, or taxes are agreed to be 13% on trade or zero%, and you can say you agree or disagree with bits, but you have a total agreement which you either largely agree with or don't. Vote accordingly. No lies. BY definition, unless it's a Hard Brexit with NO Deal - if that's the best solution the government offers us after 3 or 4 years of negotiation and assurances that we would have a fab deal, then it's really very simple. We either leave or stay as we are. If they DO have a deal, then by definition it must be better than No Deal Brexit because they have said they will opt ofr it if that's the best deal available, and so we can still analyse it, the various parts on it, and people have a final say. And that will be the absolute end of the matter for at least 30 years.

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 26 2018, 11:56 AM

But you are assume that all voters make choices as rationally as you or I...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 26 2018, 07:03 PM

No, I assume that people on either side making false claims will be easily contradicted by anyone with half a brain when it's written down in front of them. What part of that is difficult to understand?

Plus, Lone Ranger as Native Americans surround them: "It's no use Tonto we're surrounded!"
Tonto: "what do you mean "WE'RE surrounded" white man...?"

Posted by: vidcapper Jun 27 2018, 05:47 AM

Wasn't debunking such claims what the Remain campaign were trying to do?

Is it Leavers fault that they did such a bad job?



That joke is so old, it should be in a museum!

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 27 2018, 08:20 AM

No they provided facts which the Leavers lied about. Quite a difference between the 2. Is it Remainers fault that Leavers are gullible and their main politician leaders are habitual liars and self-motivated crooks?

Yes, I thought you'd enjoy a joke from 1972 before the EU made all comedy undemocratic. Though you did miss my Frank Python reference so I guess it's all a bit hazy these days....

Posted by: Sophia Jul 12 2018, 12:18 PM

Best age is 21 or above for legal responsibility