|
Brexit
Jan 11, 2018 16:56:47 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 11, 2018 16:56:47 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 11, 2018 17:24:50 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 11, 2018 17:24:50 GMT
Shouldn't that headline read "Prominent Pez-faced low-life lying creep realizes country has painted itself into a corner"?
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2018 5:27:23 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 29, 2018 5:27:23 GMT
Exactly one year from today, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union if all goes according to schedule.
There is supposed to be a transition period until 31 December 2020 during which the UK will continue to apply all EU regulations.
Still up in the air is permanent resident status for EU citizens after 2020. The conditions will not be set until a final Brexit agreement is reached with the EU.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 13, 2018 14:13:14 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on May 13, 2018 14:13:14 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
May 13, 2018 16:21:52 GMT
Post by mossie on May 13, 2018 16:21:52 GMT
Sorry Bixa, but I cannot wait to see us right out. It was bad enough, although understandable in the circumstances, to have Junkers bombing us during the war. But to have a drunken Junkers dictating to us now is most definitely not on.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 13, 2018 16:25:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickthecactus on May 13, 2018 16:25:41 GMT
I’m with Mossie- maybe it’s our age but with the will I think we can do very well out there without the EU constrictions. The richest guy in the UK reckons we can and who am I to say him nay. He is new money btw.!
|
|
|
Brexit
May 13, 2018 18:17:50 GMT
Post by bjd on May 13, 2018 18:17:50 GMT
So the older voters are setting the future for the young?
"These polls generally agree that around 70-75% of voters under 25s voted Remain. Pollsters Ipsos-Mori put the figure at 75%, and YouGov put the figure at 71%. These polls were weighted after the vote to mirror the actual 48% to 52% split between Remain and Leave voters. This means they’re likely to more reliably depict the vote split by age, than pre-referendum polls that didn’t do this weighting."
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 5:57:55 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 14, 2018 5:57:55 GMT
"So the older voters are setting the future for the young?"
Is it better that the younger voters set the future for the old? In any referendum you could ask if it is better for the Conservatives to set the future for the Labourites, or vice versa, or any winner to set the future for the loser. That is the point, it was a vote, whoever wins gets what they want and not what the other wants. Is it fair? Certainly. It's called democracy and for all it's failings, it is still the best system we have. If there is a big issue, you put it to the vote. If a section of people cry sour grapes because it didn't go their way, or as in this case, they sat on their haunches expecting a certain result that they didn't get and couldn't be bothered to secure it by going and voting in overwhelming numbers - then tough titty. That's their fault. No matter whether I agree or disagree with a result, it is a slippery slope if you put something to the country and when it doesn't go your way, say "It's not fair, best of three then?"
By the way, what are the figures for those who did vote in terms of age range and how they voted? It is easy to say 70%-75% of voters under 25 etc, but, as an extreme example, statistics can as we know can offer a view that is misleading. For example, 1000 people vote, 4 people are under 25 yrs old - 997 vote leave - 3 vote to stay - those three are under 25 yrs old. So out of those in that age range, 3 out of 4 voted to stay. Thus it can be said 75% of those under 25 who voted, voted to stay, yet their number is insignificant but it is made to sound more important than it is. How about if one voter is a member of MENSA and voted to leave? Then you could say 100% of MENSA voters voted to leave. Sounds good huh?
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 7:52:35 GMT
Post by bjd on May 14, 2018 7:52:35 GMT
I understand your point, Mark. And I think it would have been better if people had voted in greater numbers. And I also think it would have been better to set a minimum bar for the vote to be effective, like 65%.
I also know that statistics can be read to prove anything you want. However, it is true that those who are 20 now will be living with the consequences of this vote much longer than those who are 75.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 9:57:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickthecactus on May 14, 2018 9:57:51 GMT
Those consequences might be much better though.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 10:12:14 GMT
Post by questa on May 14, 2018 10:12:14 GMT
That is why in Australia voting is compulsory and great effort is made to ensure everyone from The Antarctic bases to the small desert camps of aboriginal people, get to cast a secret ballot.Technically we don't have to actually vote...only show up and receive a ballot paper and get our name crossed off. We must enter the booth and then place the folded paper in the ballot box. If one chooses to draw a rude picture in lieu of a valid vote so be it, but having to go through the routine tends to make people cast valid votes. We also don't just tick a box for our favourite, but number the boxes according to our preference. That way if candidate A doesn't get a clear 50% of votes, she can't claim victory but must negotiate with other candidates of similar beliefs to gain a seat.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 10:15:04 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 14, 2018 10:15:04 GMT
"However, it is true that those who are 20 now will be living with the consequences of this vote much longer than those who are 75."
Certainly they will. Maybe they should have thought about that. It seems 65% of anyone eligible to vote did so, no matter what age. Of those aged 18 - 34, two thirds voted one way or the other. Actually 64%. Of those aged 65 and over, 89% voted. Now, 18% of the UK is over 65, which has a population of 65.6 million, so if my maths is right, 18% of the population comes to 11,808,000. If 89% of those voted, then 10,500,000 over 65's voted. (There are about 6,000,000 aged 18 - 24 year olds. If 100% of those voted it still wouldn't outweigh those over 65) As far as I can work out, there are about 14,000,000 people aged 18 - 34. If 64% of those voted, it'd be 9,000,000. Just think what might have happened had they all turned out. However, this is making an assumption that they all would have voted to remain. Which they wouldn't. You never know, maybe the result could have been even more emphatic to leave. No matter all the figures, I tend to be quite simplistic. If you bleat about the result of a vote you didn't vote in, then you can shove your opinion up your arse (I don't mean anyone on here, just to make that clear). If you think that you deserve another vote, see the end of the last sentence. You have had one, now piss off and make the result work. In any case, if everyone without exception had voted, I think it'd still be close. Also, if all the voting was above board and legal, if only one person swayed the amount, I'd still stick with it. Why should there have to be a minimum amount vote or why should there have to be a percentage of voters that voted one way or the other to make it valid. If 50.0000001% voted one way, then that is the result. I feel more strongly about how some are trying to wheedle their way out of it and abusing the agreed (until it doesn't go their way) system than I do about if we should leave or not. Plus, you cannot have a system where the weight of a vote when a certain age is more than at another age, no matter how the result may affect one age group or another. One person, one vote, and if that isn't enough, then get up and persuade others to vote like you. Those over 65 or so who were in the majority in voting to leave didn't do it out of sheer bastardry - wanting to put the cat amongst the spanners or to throw a pigeon in the works, or to do over the young folk. They did it because they were convinced it was the right decision, for now and the future, due to age and experience. If any weighting should occur in voting, my money would be on the older generation getting it right.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 15:37:21 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 14, 2018 15:37:21 GMT
That is why in Australia voting is compulsory and great effort is made to ensure everyone from The Antarctic bases to the small desert camps of aboriginal people, get to cast a secret ballot.Technically we don't have to actually vote...only show up and receive a ballot paper and get our name crossed off. We must enter the booth and then place the folded paper in the ballot box. If one chooses to draw a rude picture in lieu of a valid vote so be it, but having to go through the routine tends to make people cast valid votes.
I have always liked the idea of compulsory voting, because the opinion of everybody (or their non-opinion) should be recorded. Unfortunately there are not very many countries that enforce this. Besides Australia, there are Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, North Korea, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, and Uruguay. About as many other countries have a law about it but do not enforce it.
Rather than imposing a penalty for not voting, I have always thought that it would be much more efficient to offer a reward to voters. In developed countries, I think that a tax credit or some of coupon for $50, £50 or €50 would be sufficient to get people into a voting booth. In the developing world, probably a smaller amount could be offered.
But regarding this specific topic, the main problem on an international message board like this one is that just about all of us have opinions about what other countries should do. I have all sorts of ideas about how the United States, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Israel -- need I continue the list? -- should conduct their affairs, but I am very aware that I am not totally qualified to tell them what to do.
Even in France, I have contradictory opinions about certain things that should be done, but I generally prefer to hold back because I am often appalled by people who mouth off without having total mastery of a subject (immigration, justice, social values, religious issues, politics...). I speak out when I really know what I am talking about.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 15:52:31 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 14, 2018 15:52:31 GMT
I speak out whether I know what I'm talking about or not.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 15:53:32 GMT
Post by bjd on May 14, 2018 15:53:32 GMT
I find it ironic that in so many places and for many years, people were doing what they could in order to be able to vote. Now that in many places they can, they don't bother.
And paying people to vote? It costs a bundle to hold elections-- if the government had to pay each voter $50, the cost would be so high that they would never hold elections. I'm sure there are countries where voters are paid, but it's usually by individual candidates and it's called corruption.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 16:19:55 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 14, 2018 16:19:55 GMT
Other methods could be used. For example, Paris is one of the growing number of cities around the world which uses the system of participatory budgets. Voters could be allowed to designate a specific amount to the budget objective that they find the most important -- education, security, national defence, health care, culture...
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 18:28:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickthecactus on May 14, 2018 18:28:15 GMT
I speak out whether I know what I'm talking about or not. I’m always totally convinced. But then I’m very gullible.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 20:24:32 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 14, 2018 20:24:32 GMT
You know the word gullible is not in the dictionary?
I looked up 'paranoia'. The definition was, "what do you want to know for?" Couldn't find 'camouflage' anywhere.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 14, 2018 20:29:50 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 14, 2018 20:29:50 GMT
By the way, just read that the word "gammon" - ".....has become a popular term on social media to describe the rosy complexion of outraged middle-aged people in the UK." and associated with those who voted to leave. Also as a counter to being called a snowflake. www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44108080
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 2:17:14 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on May 15, 2018 2:17:14 GMT
the main problem on an international message board like this one is that just about all of us have opinions about what other countries should do. It is for that very reason that I hesitated in answering Mick and Mossie after I posted the article about the students. Now I'm glad I waited, as the conversation got more interesting. I feel more strongly about how some are trying to wheedle their way out of it and abusing the agreed (until it doesn't go their way) system than I do about if we should leave or not. Even though I'm only quoting a small part of what Mark said, I did read all of what he wrote and agree up to a point. That point is that it was a referendum, as opposed to a binding vote. Really, it was more of a pulse-taking. The European Union Referendum Act of 2015 required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. The bill did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. sourceObviously neither Mick nor Mossie nor many others who were in favor of leaving have changed their minds between the time of the referendum and now, but there are many others who feel that the public was not given enough solid information beforehand, so those people are now in the Remain camp. Adding that to the students' position that they just barely missed being eligible to participate in the referendum and that in all the negotiations involving disentangling from 43 years of partnership, the UK is not coming out ahead, why wouldn't a second referendum be a good idea? I don't think that paying people to go exercise their right to vote is a good idea, although Kerouac's suggestion that: Voters could be allowed to designate a specific amount to the budget objective that they find the most important -- education, security, national defence, health care, culture... seems very positive on multiple levels: certain budgets would swell after an election, thus also acting as an index as to what citizens considered important, and it would be an excellent way to get the citizenry to feel more involved and with luck, want to inform themselves better as well. You know the word gullible is not in the dictionary? I looked up 'paranoia'. The definition was, "what do you want to know for?" Couldn't find 'camouflage' anywhere.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 3:12:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by Kimby on May 15, 2018 3:12:27 GMT
Late to the debate, but wouldn’t mandatory voting force “low-information” or misinformed individuals to make guesses or bad choices? Choices that - as the 2016 US election showed - can upset the apple cart in an unfortunate and long-lasting way.
I’d rather make voting harder than easier, in that you should know something about each race and each issue if you’re going to cast a vote.
Though having “neither” or “none of the above” as options on the ballot would help some. And having automatic runoff elections would make 3rd party candidates viable, instead of “spoilers” as they are now.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 6:28:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by whatagain on May 15, 2018 6:28:57 GMT
Not sure compulsory vote is a good solution. I live in Belgium as Kerouac says and as a result my in law will vote in coming elections. He suffers from Alzheimer's and doesn't know what year we live in. His vote is as important as mine. Great. The vote of the guy who lives next door to my uncle and has dropped out if school and has gotten allowances since he was 18 (before that his parents who never worked either were getting money fir him via familial allowances) will help determine what will be my tax rate. Great too. So basically brain dead people and lazy losers dictate how my money is used. This is called democracy and according to Churchill the least bad system. Soif people want out of UK they don't need - according to me - a good reason for that. I just hope they don't complain afterwards and I just hope EUROPE tells UK to get lost and don't bother with them anymore : taxes visas regulations whatever. And a tax on all services and material coming from outside EU. You quit a team you don't ask favours and you don't get invited to the party anymore is what I think we should do. We live in a world to becomes more egocentric. US reverts into isolationism and fears migrants and buuld walls to keep them away. Eastern Europe has no migrants but vote against welcoming a few of them. Good. Bruts want the same so ok for me. But they stay on their island.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 8:37:45 GMT
Post by onlyMark on May 15, 2018 8:37:45 GMT
Stop using our language then.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 9:34:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by whatagain on May 15, 2018 9:34:44 GMT
Ça c'est une idée qu'elle est bonne. Misschien kunnen we verder gaan in het Vlaams ;-)
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 9:38:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickthecactus on May 15, 2018 9:38:33 GMT
And I am sorry to have offended you whatagain.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 10:27:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by whatagain on May 15, 2018 10:27:13 GMT
You did not Mick. You did not. I am just (too) hot on the subject. Comes from being Belgian I guess. Such a small country I cannot understand what being Belgian means. So I consider myself as an European. And wrongly assume everybody living in Europe should be an European. Which means I disregard the attachment one has towards his/her own country such as a Brit or a French or a German. I owe you apologies on that subject myself. You are of course entitled to gave a different view than mine but your view could very well be the right one or the one I would find right if I had been born in your shoes. And as long as you have your head you can and should vote !
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 10:47:17 GMT
Post by mossie on May 15, 2018 10:47:17 GMT
I am afraid that Brexit raises very strong emotions, not to mention long forgotten useless politicians. Calamity Clegg and one of the Millibrains are now chucking their weight about, teling us peasants we don’t know what democracy is. I.e. we should bow down to their superior knowledge, and do as they say, regardless of our own thoughts.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 12:25:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickthecactus on May 15, 2018 12:25:38 GMT
Thank you whatagain. Appreciated.
Incidentally, immigration never, never was a factor in my vote.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 15:39:08 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on May 15, 2018 15:39:08 GMT
Anybody from Belgium, a country that has been invaded countless times (including by France), has every reason to fully understand the benefit of the European Union. It is often pointed out that countries that share a currency will never go to war, and that even without a common currency for most of the time, the EU has ensured peace in our region for more than 70 years. I prefer to think of the EU as being a federation of regions with many common goals, even if there is disagreement from time to time (as I'm sure there should be).
The EU has offered enormous protection for health, nutrition, security, facilitation of exchanges, education and a number of other things, not forgetting negotiations with the power monsters around the globe, since we are still #1 until China manages to overtake us. That is my own reason for incomprehension of the UK decision to pull out and have to negotiate everything on its own starting in 2021. If the goal is to become the lapdog of the United States (a common accusation in the time of Tony Blair), then I understand the decision, but if it is to become as powerful as Iceland or Montenegro, it just does not make any sense to me.
|
|
|
Brexit
May 15, 2018 15:46:40 GMT
Post by bjd on May 15, 2018 15:46:40 GMT
Well, perhaps Britain will be a bit more influential than Iceland or Montenegro, but otherwise I agree totally with Kerouac.
|
|