Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swinglowandslow said:
It does seem that whoever becomes Tory leader and thus PM, will be faced with getting their deal ( or no deal) voted through the HoC.
However, taking the view that the referendum ,by definition , is a greater "power to decide" than the HoC, the Government should take us out of the EU, and leave the HoC out of it.
Now someone is going to point out ,rightly,that somewhere along the line the judges were approached to rule that the final say on a deal, should rest with Parliament, and thus we have the ensuing fiasco.
I argue that who the hell are the judges to decide that the Government cannot implement the will of the people? We have a vote involving millions, any adult in the Country who wants to vote, called a referendum, and then some few judges can ignore all that and pass the issue to a few hundred to decide instead?
The new PM should be looking to find a way , if at all possible, to overrule those judges and HoC and get on with doing what the Country instructed.
There must be a legal requirement somewhere that referenda results are binding. Otherwise , what is the point??.
Click to expand...

"However, taking the view that the referendum ,by definition , is a greater "power to decide" than the HoC" No it is not. The referendum was advisory, we live in a representative democracy where we elect representatives to parliament to make decisions for us.

Also the judges have not decided that parliament can not implement the will of the people, they have not told parliament how to vote. The government are not able to get enough votes to get a majority in parliament to take us out of the EU, again, not the judges fault. And as for advocating PMs over ruling judges and a representative democracy then best of luck with that, what can possibly go wrong....
 
chrisd said:
When many here were young we didn't get to vote until we were 21 as, I assume, it was thought that we didn't have enough life experience to fully understand what we were voting for. Many if us had left school at 15 and were in full time work and were probably as streetwise as any 20+ year old is today.

We know at 65 much more than we knew at 25 and, has been said before, in other cultures the young defer to the elderly for advice and I'm reasonably assured that most 65 year olds understand life, and the ramification of decisions made better than most 25 year olds. If, however, the younger generation who qualified to vote in the referendum had bothered to get themselves down to the polling station and vote then they maybe could have achieved the outcomes they wanted, assuming the majority who didn't vote would be remainers which is by no means a given. Clearly they are not as clever as you may think if they couldn't work out that there vote mattered.

Finally, only history and opinion will tell if decisions made now were right or wrong and the younger generation of now will undoubtedly be told in time by the youngsters of the future how they've messed it up but you know what - if you change things you can never truly know what would have happened had you steered the original course
Click to expand...

A number of younger people choosing not to vote is not a reason to exclude 16 and 17 year olds who want to vote.

Voter engagement has generally reduced through the decades with people of all ages being less inclined to vote at the various elections that seem to take place almost every year.

If 16 & 17 year olds want to vote and actually choose to, then I'd argue that those who choose to will be far more engaged than your average 70 year old who has probably voted Labour or Tory in every election that they can remember.

I just can't see any negatives at all for allowing more people to vote. Politics is already rigged towards older people given the demographics mean the main parties would be foolish not to tilt their manifestos towards the over 50s (even if turnout was uniform between the age groups) so let the younger people have their say.
 
Grant85 said:
I just can't see any negatives at all for allowing more people to vote..
Click to expand...

As a stand alone statement I cant disagree, but playing devils advocate.....would you be happy for 16/17 year olds to have a influence on your life of this sort?
 
adam6177 said:
As a stand alone statement I cant disagree, but playing devils advocate.....would you be happy for 16/17 year olds to have a influence on your life of this sort?
Click to expand...

I would be delighted.

Certainly happier for them to have influence than I am with 85 year olds who can't remember what they had for breakfast.
 
Grant85 said:
A number of younger people choosing not to vote is not a reason to exclude 16 and 17 year olds who want to vote.

Voter engagement has generally reduced through the decades with people of all ages being less inclined to vote at the various elections that seem to take place almost every year.

If 16 & 17 year olds want to vote and actually choose to, then I'd argue that those who choose to will be far more engaged than your average 70 year old who has probably voted Labour or Tory in every election that they can remember.

I just can't see any negatives at all for allowing more people to vote. Politics is already rigged towards older people given the demographics mean the main parties would be foolish not to tilt their manifestos towards the over 50s (even if turnout was uniform between the age groups) so let the younger people have their say.
Click to expand...

If a 70 year old had always voted for a particular party that is their democratic right, it doesn't mean that they are less engaged, in fact it could mean quite the opposite. I dont know anyone who doesn't vote for the party who doesn't best suit their own narrative. If 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to understand the ramifications of placing their vote where they do, I'm personally fine with that.

As I posted earlier we weren't able to vote until we were 21 which was changed to 18 in 1970. I had been at work for 3 years, paid tax and was allowed to get married, have children or join the army and see active service before I was deemed competent to vote! Now they want to vote whilst at school- good idea for some but not others imo, you're still arguing with them what time they have to get home from McDonalds at 16, and where do you draw the line? 15, 14 ?? because there will always be calls to lower the limit.
 
Someone might say - "With age comes knowledge and wisdom". Yes, that's often true.


However, I would counter with - "With age can also come becoming entrenched in your ignorant views (sexism, racism) and a feeling of superiority (IT WEREN'T LIKE THIS IN MY DAY, WE NEED TO GET THIS COUNTRY BACK FROM THE MESS IT'S IN)"

The country is NOT in the mess some people would have us believe. We are overall a very happy society. Having close trading and cultural ties with the EU has improved this country, both economically and socially. In my experience, it is the older generation who are close to retirement or already retired that have this distorted view that the UK is nothing more than a breeding ground for hate and depravity and only a return to pure sovereignty (I love when people pretend they care about sovereignty when they really mean "Britain for Britons!!!!") will save us from this downfall.

We have many ills in society - as do all countries. We have poverty, we have unemployment, we have people that struggle in our cultures but we also have a massive history of overcoming these issues in a better way than other countries. I admire the way we accept immigrants on the whole and try to help them lead better lives. I love our NHS and I'm proud to have worked for it for nearly ten years, doing my little bit to help others in what capacity I do have. Look at my own little part of the UK, Northern Ireland - look at the changes I witnessed in my 25 years living here.

I've digressed a bit, as is my wont at times, but for all those who think I just make inflammatory statements for the sake of it, I hope that you'll actually see that if I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms it's because I can see all the positives we have had in the past, and would continue to have as part of the EU and also that federalism isn't necessarily a bad thing!

National pride isn't a good thing - it's toxic and, in my view, is often followed closely by a shunning of all things foreign without due diligence of the benefits.
 
Grant85 said:
I would be delighted.

Certainly happier for them to have influence than I am with 85 year olds who can't remember what they had for breakfast.
Click to expand...

I dont know your stance on brexit, so forgive me....but if the media lead us to believe that most 16/17 year olds wanted to leave the EU would you still feel the same?
 
Doon frae Troon said:
It would not change my mind but I would be extremely worried about why young voters were voting for UK isolation
Click to expand...

Really'?? Not isolation, it is engagement with the whole planet, without a drunk from Luxembourg telling us who we can and cant deal with. (AND Germany still need to sell us their cars...)

You know all this, but your trolling continues
 
Last edited:
My thoughts re under 18 p’s voting is that most that support it are off a certain view re brexit and allowing the younger folk to vote would suit their agenda.

Imo imo 15-20 years when these folk have 16 year old children I wonder if they’ll ever utter the phrase “not under my roof” or words to that effect. Most parents still have to effectively babysit or man manage their children at their age. They simply don’t have the maturity imo to understand fully the repercussions.

I base that opinion on meeting approx 1000 16-18 yr olds over the last 5 years through my missus work and seeing how reliant they still are on their parents.
 
adam6177 said:
IMO they'd voting for the complete opposite by voting leave.
Click to expand...
Or they can make their own mind up and make their own decision based on how they want their future to look like - right now a country that is thriving within a union with the EU and multiple trade deals all over the world.
 
IanM said:
... without a drunk from Luxembourg telling us who we can and cant deal with. ...
Click to expand...

It amazes me that he's still the only person in Europe who makes the rules - you'd think there'd be a parliament of sorts (perhaps made up of elected officials from the member states) who'd make these decisions, not just one man?
 
IMO arguing about old or young is pointless. I worked in Universities for decades and know how volatile students can be as they form their views? For young people it is a question of maturity. Some will be still be in puberty at 16/17 with ragng hormones but mentality mature: it will be the reverse for others. Similarly order people may be entrenched in the past others will not.

In a group of 70 million people the generalisation society has to make in order to functions will always have exceptions. It is however dangerous to always bend to the loud minority.

Democracy replies on respecting the need to accept majority decisions: lose that principle and you'll lose stability. If you want evidence see the HoC
 
Hacker Khan said:
"However, taking the view that the referendum ,by definition , is a greater "power to decide" than the HoC" No it is not. The referendum was advisory, we live in a representative democracy where we elect representatives to parliament to make decisions for us.

Also the judges have not decided that parliament can not implement the will of the people, they have not told parliament how to vote. The government are not able to get enough votes to get a majority in parliament to take us out of the EU, again, not the judges fault. And as for advocating PMs over ruling judges and a representative democracy then best of luck with that, what can possibly go wrong....
Click to expand...
Explain how we can have a representative democracy where our representatives don't represent our views. Parliament asked us to decide for them and now many are doing all they can to frustrate the result
 
Fade and Die said:
First Project Fear, now Project Smear! Is there no depth to how low the remainer establishment will stoop to stop Brexit?
Click to expand...

Hardly the establishment, it's a private citizen who crowd funded his project.

Also, he isn't stopping Brexit, just aiming to hold a politician to account for, just one, of his lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
9K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top