Poll : EU

13

Comments

  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    My 16yo would like a vote, her reasoning is that many older folk get one yet this decision may not effect them but for her generation it could be devastating.
    As many 16yo are making life choices with gcse's and A levels, they are obviously deemed mature enough, certainly more mature than the 65 plate BMW driver who came past us both at hi speed, dead straight road with a foot to spare :(

    so, what do others think?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    mamba80 wrote:
    so, what do others think?
    If you are old enough to raise a child, then you are old enough to make decisions that impact on their future.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mamba80 wrote:
    My 16yo would like a vote, her reasoning is that many older folk get one yet this decision may not effect them but for her generation it could be devastating.
    As many 16yo are making life choices with gcse's and A levels, they are obviously deemed mature enough, certainly more mature than the 65 plate BMW driver who came past us both at hi speed, dead straight road with a foot to spare :(

    so, what do others think?

    makes sense - any future referendum won't be for 20 years. Likewise you could take the vote off anybody over the age of 80... if only for the comedy factor
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    My 16yo would like a vote, her reasoning is that many older folk get one yet this decision may not effect them but for her generation it could be devastating.
    As many 16yo are making life choices with gcse's and A levels, they are obviously deemed mature enough, certainly more mature than the 65 plate BMW driver who came past us both at hi speed, dead straight road with a foot to spare :(

    so, what do others think?

    makes sense - any future referendum won't be for 20 years. Likewise you could take the vote off anybody over the age of 80... if only for the comedy factor

    Taking the elderly off the list will reduce the OUT vote by exactly 47.8%, IMO
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    So you reckon the age should be dropped to 16 0r even lower? People under 18 are deemed to not be mature enough to pick their marriage partners without their parents approval. They can't buy alcohol, cigarettes or even enter a betting shop.
    Every child must be in full time education until the last Friday in June of the educational year. Note the word child.
    So at 16 we would have people voting who had only seen the inside of a classroom and had limited life experiences.
    Having said all that, everyone is different. Some 16 year olds are probably more deserving of the vote that some adults.
    I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 seems about right.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    It's faintly ridiculous 16 yr olds can't by beer but that's a separate issue.

    You can join the army and shoot people at 16 no?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It's faintly ridiculous 16 yr olds can't by beer but that's a separate issue.

    You can join the army and shoot people at 16 no?

    I believe that whilst you can join the army at 16 you are not allowed in combat zone until 18.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Bobbinogs wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    My 16yo would like a vote, her reasoning is that many older folk get one yet this decision may not effect them but for her generation it could be devastating.
    As many 16yo are making life choices with gcse's and A levels, they are obviously deemed mature enough, certainly more mature than the 65 plate BMW driver who came past us both at hi speed, dead straight road with a foot to spare :(

    so, what do others think?

    makes sense - any future referendum won't be for 20 years. Likewise you could take the vote off anybody over the age of 80... if only for the comedy factor

    Taking the elderly off the list will reduce the OUT vote by exactly 47.8%, IMO

    that stat should be reversed - the elderly will vote to maintain the status quo - see Scottish Referendum
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    I think a lot of elderly think the status quo is out of europe and that going in was the change they didn't vote for. So more a case of going back to how things were (in the good old days).
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,398
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!

    But the counter side to that is if you are unemployed and not paying tax you don't get to vote, regardless of age.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,398
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!

    But the counter side to that is if you are unemployed and not paying tax you don't get to vote, regardless of age.

    I don't think that has to be the case, I just feel it's unfair that 16 and 17 year olds are disenfranchised when in other regards they are treated as adults.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!

    But the counter side to that is if you are unemployed and not paying tax you don't get to vote, regardless of age.

    I don't think that has to be the case, I just feel it's unfair that 16 and 17 year olds are disenfranchised when in other regards they are treated as adults.

    I was just musing on your No taxation without representation remark.
    The point is, they are not universally treated as adults. Youth courts for people up to 17 for example. Many 16 year olds could be mature enough to vote, many would not be.
    As I said earlier, the line has to be somewhere and 18 seems about right.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I was just musing on your No taxation without representation remark.
    The point is, they are not universally treated as adults. Youth courts for people up to 17 for example. Many 16 year olds could be mature enough to vote, many would not be.
    As I said earlier, the line has to be somewhere and 18 seems about right.
    Just a question.
    Does that apply equally to parenthood?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Does what apply to parenthood?
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    This 16 year old seems quite mature.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ystem.html
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I was just musing on your No taxation without representation remark.
    The point is, they are not universally treated as adults. Youth courts for people up to 17 for example. Many 16 year olds could be mature enough to vote, many would not be.
    As I said earlier, the line has to be somewhere and 18 seems about right.
    Just a question.
    Does that apply equally to parenthood?
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Does what apply to parenthood?
    The bit in red.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!

    But the counter side to that is if you are unemployed and not paying tax you don't get to vote, regardless of age.
    "No representation without taxation". Sounds pretty fair to me. Wouldn't do wonders for the Labour vote, mind you :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    In an ideal world, probably yes.
    But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!

    But the counter side to that is if you are unemployed and not paying tax you don't get to vote, regardless of age.
    "No representation without taxation". Sounds pretty fair to me. Wouldn't do wonders for the Labour vote, mind you :)

    Hadn't thought of it til someone posted "No taxation without representation," but the idea of no representation without taxation has a certain appeal. :lol:
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Ballysmate wrote:
    In an ideal world, probably yes.
    But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.
    And that is where the inconsistency lies. Old enough to breed and raise, but not to decide on the future.
    The rules should change one way or the other to align.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote and always have - if you left school at 16 and went out to work, you would be paying income tax, and I don't think it's fair that you should be taxed without having any say in how it's spent (obviously ignoring the fact teenagers may have part time jobs before 16 and still pay VAT on anything they buy).

    No taxation without representation!

    But the counter side to that is if you are unemployed and not paying tax you don't get to vote, regardless of age.
    "No representation without taxation". Sounds pretty fair to me. Wouldn't do wonders for the Labour vote, mind you :)

    Hadn't thought of it til someone posted "No taxation without representation," but the idea of no representation without taxation has a certain appeal. :lol:
    Credit where credit is due: :D
    https://youtu.be/WgAarQExtjE
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    In an ideal world, probably yes.
    But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.
    And that is where the inconsistency lies. Old enough to breed and raise, but not to decide on the future.
    The rules should change one way or the other to align.


    Would you send 16 year olds to prison?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Ballysmate wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    In an ideal world, probably yes.
    But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.
    And that is where the inconsistency lies. Old enough to breed and raise, but not to decide on the future.
    The rules should change one way or the other to align.


    Would you send 16 year olds to prison?
    If they had a vote. Your move.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Credit where credit is due: :D
    https://youtu.be/WgAarQExtjE
    Fair bit of truth in that. If your are honest with your electoral roll.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    In an ideal world, probably yes.
    But you can't stop the little f*ckers, well ... er... f*cking.
    And that is where the inconsistency lies. Old enough to breed and raise, but not to decide on the future.
    The rules should change one way or the other to align.


    Would you send 16 year olds to prison?
    If they had a vote. Your move.

    I wouldn't, regardless of voting rights.
    The point I was making is that adolescence is a gradual process. During that period, youngsters gradually get more freedoms and more responsibilities. I think that process is broadly right.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I wouldn't, regardless of voting rights.
    The point I was making is that adolescence is a gradual process. During that period, youngsters gradually get more freedoms and more responsibilities. I think that process is broadly right.
    And yet 16 is deemed old enough to be fully responsible for the most fragile human beings.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    I'd rather see the age raised to 21 rather than it lowered to 16 if were changed. Will give people time to mature and work out some the issues that are involved in being an adult.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    verylonglegs wrote:
    I'd rather see the age raised to 21 rather than it lowered to 16 if were changed. Will give people time to mature and work out some the issues that are involved in being an adult.

    Because young people already have so much representation.

    One of the arguments for lowering the age is to counteract the imbalanced voting power of the blue rinsed brigade.

    Take a look at any policy that affects generations differently and the old will come out on top every single time.
    _
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    I'm looking at it from the viewpoint that the course of life has changed a fair bit in the last 40yrs. People no longer get married at 21 and settle down and with compulsory education until 18 now and half of them at university until they are 21 I just think making them wait a bit longer might turn the tide a little in appreciating the fact you can vote is something to be considered carefully and make more people inclined to do so.

    That's just my opinion if it is to be changed, the current age need not be altered in my view and certainly not down to people potentially still at school.

Categories