For the obvious reason that it was merely a ploy by Remainers to prevent the referendum.

 

It would never have prevented it - just created a fair and balanced framework along majority standards...

You implied you didn't care about a referendum 30 years from now because you would be dead. I implied you might be dead sooner than you think thanks to the state of the NHS, not helped by a Brexit which makes funding the NHS even worse than it already is. Sorry you didn't see the connection, obviously too subtle.

 

I'm just surprised you didn't toss in a reference to the infamous £350m. :P

 

It wouldn't have stopped the referendum at all. It would simply have avoided any of the nations of the UK feeling they were being forced out of the EU against their will. The Americans have a similar arrangement for changes to their constitution. Obviously it doesn't require all 50 states to vote in favour - that would be absurd - but it does mean that the larger states cannot outvote the smaller ones simply by virtue of the size of their population.

 

But AFAIK there is no precedent for a one-nation, one-vote, system like this in British politics?

 

It would never have prevented it - just created a fair and balanced framework along majority standards...

 

Which would have left us with a Catalonia situation, with the will of the majority being thwarted on a technicality. Or if you want a better example, the 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum, in which the electorate voted Yes, but was defeated by a precondition similar to the one proposed here. The result caused a simmering resentment that fueled the rise of the SNP.

It's difficult to talk about precedent when we have only had three UK-wide referendums.

It's difficult to talk about precedent when we have only had three UK-wide referendums.

 

True, but in any case it seems unlikely that a one-nation, one-vote Amendment would have gotten through the English dominated HoC anyway...

True, but in any case it seems unlikely that a one-nation, one-vote Amendment would have gotten through the English dominated HoC anyway...

It didn't get through - not because of the English dominance, but because of the Tory dominance.

It didn't get through - not because of the English dominance, but because of the Tory dominance.

 

Oops, sorry - I'd forgotten that it had already been mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Even so, having an Engllsh pro-Brexit vote struck down that way would have been a gift for UKIP, and generated resentment against the Remain-voting countries.

Oops, sorry - I'd forgotten that it had already been mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Even so, having an Engllsh pro-Brexit vote struck down that way would have been a gift for UKIP, and generated resentment against the Remain-voting countries.

Whereas everything now is sweetness and light :unsure:

I'm just surprised you didn't toss in a reference to the infamous £350m. :P

But AFAIK there is no precedent for a one-nation, one-vote, system like this in British politics?

Which would have left us with a Catalonia situation, with the will of the majority being thwarted on a technicality. Or if you want a better example, the 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum, in which the electorate voted Yes, but was defeated by a precondition similar to the one proposed here. The result caused a simmering resentment that fueled the rise of the SNP.

 

Um I have lived in Spain ... have you? The majority of people in Cataluña want to remain part of Spain, so let's not get that wrong.

 

60% is absolutely fine and 3/4 of nations a necessity to avoid English home county dominance.

 

There is alreadg simmering resentment over 50% of the nations AND PUBLIC AND OVERHWELMING NUMBERS OF THE YOUNG, TOO YOUNG TO VOTE, being stiffed by this Tory obsession with leaving.

It wouldn't have stopped the referendum at all. It would simply have avoided any of the nations of the UK feeling they were being forced out of the EU against their will. The Americans have a similar arrangement for changes to their constitution. Obviously it doesn't require all 50 states to vote in favour - that would be absurd - but it does mean that the larger states cannot outvote the smaller ones simply by virtue of the size of their population.

Yes, but that's a pretty undemocratic system too.

There is alreadg simmering resentment over 50% of the nations AND PUBLIC AND OVERHWELMING NUMBERS OF THE YOUNG, TOO YOUNG TO VOTE, being stiffed by this Tory obsession with leaving.

 

As usual, you exaggerate.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice that most of the leading Tories are Remainers, and what they are actually doing is fulfilling the pledge made to honour the result of the referendum. If you think Tories are untrustworthy *now*, just imagine what it would be like if they stiffed the 17.4m Leave voters!

 

As for those too young to vote, I very much doubt they are as bothered about it as you are - teenagers tend to have other priorities than politics : exam results, music, dating, etc.

As usual, you exaggerate.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice that most of the leading Tories are Remainers, and what they are actually doing is fulfilling the pledge made to honour the result of the referendum. If you think Tories are untrustworthy *now*, just imagine what it would be like if they stiffed the 17.4m Leave voters!

 

As for those too young to vote, I very much doubt they are as bothered about it as you are - teenagers tend to have other priorities than politics : exam results, music, dating, etc.

 

The same as if they stiffed 16 million remainers!

 

Oh REAAAALLY? Is that why the Tories are desperate for the tourh vote and the last election was Revenge of the Young with young coters, angry at the referendum and some not getting to vote that time, running to rhe polls?? If Tories are so sure they won't vote, extend the voting age? Oops. No? If the age had been 15/16 for the referendum, the margin for Leave would have been EVEN SMALLER.

 

Leave can hardly claim to have won.

The same as if they stiffed 16 million remainers!

 

Oh REAAAALLY? Is that why the Tories are desperate for the tourh vote and the last election was Revenge of the Young with young coters

 

Ever thought about using a spell-checker? :mellow:

 

angry at the referendum and some not getting to vote that time, running to rhe polls?? If Tories are so sure they won't vote, extend the voting age? Oops. No? If the age had been 15/16 for the referendum, the margin for Leave would have been EVEN SMALLER.

 

How do you justify granting the vote to people who are not legally old enough to be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are?

Politica affects EVERYONE.

 

If 95vyear olda can vote for long-term effects referendums, then the touth MUST be awarded this same courtesy. Why should they not get a vote?

Politica affects EVERYONE.

 

If 95vyear olda can vote for long-term effects referendums, then the touth MUST be awarded this same courtesy. Why should they not get a vote?

 

I just explained *why*. If they want adult rights, they must accept adult responsibilities too.

I just explained *why*. If they want adult rights, they must accept adult responsibilities too.

 

And I explained that as politica affects everyone, there is no reason at all to deny young people a say.

And I explained that as politica affects everyone, there is no reason at all to deny young people a say.

 

You do realise that, by that logic, toddlers should be allowed to vote... :wacko:

Wrong.

 

Once they have developed a sense of self and politics...

 

Stick your ad adsurdium steawman argument where it belongs

Wrong.

 

Once they have developed a sense of sense and politics...

 

Stick your ad adsurdium steawman argument where it belongs

 

a 'sense of sense'? :huh:

 

IF 15 yo's could vote, can you suggest any reason why they should not, for example, be tried as adults, and if convicted, serve their sentence in an adult prison - not to mention not have their anonymity protected?

Yes as those are completely separate things.

 

Opening up the vote is broadening civic rights. They are extremely affected by the government and policies, and why do they not get any say as to policies regarding themselves? It also balances out the grey conservative small-c vote. By the eay, 95 year olds if tried would hardly get harsh sentences either. They still vote though.

 

Yes as those are completely separate things.

 

Opening up the vote is broadening civic rights. They are extremely affected by the government and policies, and why do they not get any say as to policies regarding themselves? It also balances out the grey conservative small-c vote. By the eay, 95 year olds if tried would hardly get harsh sentences either. They still vote though.

 

Why is it so hard for you the grasp the idea that if you want to be treated as an adult, for example in terms of being able to vote, you must also bear the responsibilities that come with that trust?