Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I'm still yet to get an actual answer to my question, which i've repeated a few different times. None of you going to take a swing at it?

Screenshot_20191029-210442.png (479.08 KiB) Viewed 1964 times

[Imploding Turtle]

Screenshot_20191029-210442.png

Oh, i'd forgot about that question, but that one matters too. I believe i wanted you to not google it, and tell me how many allegations of voter fraud was required to make it worthwhile to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Oh, i'd forgot about that question, but that one matters too. I believe i wanted you to not google it, and tell me how many allegations of voter fraud was required to make it worthwhile to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people?

Didn't want me to Google it but wanted me to guess, get it wrong and then you could belittle me because you knew the answer which you'd googled....

Yeah alright, I'm well up for playing that game with you.
I'll delete my post so we can go again....

[Imploding Turtle]

Didn't want me to Google it but wanted me to guess, get it wrong and then you could belittle me because you knew the answer which you'd googled....

Yeah alright, I'm well up for playing that game with you.
I'll delete my post so we can go again....

No, i didn't want you to guess either. wtf you on about?

I wanted you to tell me how many allegations of voter fraud you would need there to be to make disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people worth it.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I don't think a GE would solve the Brexit issue either, I think it's more remainers who want a GE because they realise it's more likely than a 2nd referendum & there's a chance in a GE of further delaying the exit date again & again or a slim chance of removing the tories from power, all a GE will do is frustrate & unsettle Brexit & further delay & try to get people onside with the remain perspective. Anything to basically thwart brexit is the mission.

Boris wants to thwart Brexit?

[Jakubclaret]

Boris wants to thwart Brexit?

Far too much information or detail in the response for me to explain why boris doesn’t want to thwart brexit.

[If it be your will]

I missed this in all the excitement.

It is possible that Brexit could provide the impetus to update, upgrade, etc. Wouldn't that just shift the issue from foreigners causing the problem to robots causing it.

Also, thinking about it, I'm not really on board with the underlying premise. With our minimum wage the labour in the UK is far more expensive than many other, more productive, territories. Surely the incentive has already been there to upgrade compared to other countries with a much cheaper labour pool?

Where your view is interesting is that obviously most people are foreseeing a Britain with deregulation, more capitalist, etc post-Brexit but you're hoping it will be the impetus for a swing in the other direction. Who knows what we'll end up with.

It is often forgotten that the act of leaving the EU is not inherently left or right wing. It can't be. It's what happens after we've left that determines this. I think it absolutely, desperately sad that Corbyn has chucked this election away trying to please remainers, in direct opposition to everything he has believed for decades. I expect he'll never forgive himself for this. I don't know when the left will get another opportunity to govern without the EU's rules. When he loses this election - which is utterly inevitable - the Blairites will be back in charge of Labour for the foreseeable future.

It'll be interesting what manifesto Labour go with. I think he should put out 2 separate documents: one with all the plans if we do leave the EU (which will presumably resemble his 2017 manifesto), and one for if we remain (which will have to be considerably different to his 2017 manifesto).

[Burnley Ace]

No, i didn't want you to guess either. wtf you on about?

I wanted you to tell me how many allegations of voter fraud you would need there to be to make disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people worth it.

One is enough. If you can’t be arsed to get to the Town Hall to get your free voter ID then you are disenfranchising yourself.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

No, i didn't want you to guess either. wtf you on about?

I wanted you to tell me how many allegations of voter fraud you would need there to be to make disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people worth it.

My bad sorry, I was waiting for my film to start at the cinema and misread your post.

In regards to disenfranchising X amount of voters with ID requirements, could you consider the possibility they're part of the 30-40% of the eligibilie electorate in the UK who don't vote in general elections?
ID requirements will be neither here nor there for those who aren't bothered about voting.
There are some people who're just never going to vote for varying reasons, including those who're disillusioned with politics as a whole.

If someone really wanted to vote some form of simple ID isn't beyond anyone's reach.

[Imploding Turtle]

One is enough. If you can’t be arsed to get to the Town Hall to get your free voter ID then you are disenfranchising yourself.

lol. You think it's gonna be free. Bless.

[Burnley Ace]

Yes I do, like it was free in the trials and negates any argument against it. Hopefully it will be the precursor to a national ID card.

[ClaretAndJew]

A national ID card one minute, your own special identification number tattooed on your arm the next.

[aggi]

You are aware that you can have sex without intending to start a family, right? There are products you can buy that inhibit conception.

My argument, which i've made crystal-*******-clear and yet some how you're still not grasping it, is that you are legally deemed responsible enough to start a family at 16 years old. But deemed NOT legally responsible enough to cast a vote for a politician. And that is clearly ridiculous since obviously choosing to raise a child is a much bigger decision to make than deciding for whom to cast a vote.

You might be right about the DAOR. I remember it having a time limit after beginning training, but the under 18 thing also rings a bell. I'll amend my point then, you're deemed responsible enough to handle an SA80 but not a ballot. I'm sure i don't need to explain why an SA80 requires more responsibility.

Why does the age of consent trump all of the other things that you're not legally considered able to do, without parental parental permission or at all, at 16 (leave home, get married, leave "education", watch a scary movie, drink, smoke, make legal contracts, buy a house, buy a knife, serve on a jury, etc.)? All of these suggest that 16-17 year olds aren't judged as responsible enough to make such decisions.

You're also viewing the age of consent as if it's sole consideration was when do we view people as old enough to reproduce without taking into account the other factors around it. However, attempting to allow sex at one age but not allow reproduction until a later age is somewhat tricky.

When the age of consent was 12 would you have been pushing for 12 year olds to have the vote? Why is 16 the magic number?

[Lancasterclaret]

For balance

We have people who are happy to believe that because they haven't met Johnson he can't be a liar.

Then we have this 16 year old on Question Time

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/sta ... 6406418438" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who deserves the vote more?

[Jakubclaret]

For balance

We have people who are happy to believe that because they haven't met Johnson he can't be a liar.

Then we have this 16 year old on Question Time

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/sta ... 6406418438" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who deserves the vote more?

I've watched the clip & she raises some valid points, but realistically you've got to look at her position & say men/women of a older age bracket who've worked a great deal of their working lifes, at the end of the day she's 16yrs old & her life is in front of her, I fail to see how she can predict with any certainty about huge generational changes, its speculation on her part, watching it I'm thinking life is tough & that's just the way the cookie crumbles, get over it stop whinging, she's in control of her own destiny.

[Lancasterclaret]

I've watched the clip & she raises some valid points, but realistically you've got to look at her position & say men/women of a older age bracket who've worked a great deal of their working lifes, at the end of the day she's 16yrs old & her life is in front of her, I fail to see how she can predict with any certainty about huge generational changes, its speculation on her part, watching it I'm thinking life is tough & that's just the way the cookie crumbles, get over it stop whinging, she's in control of her own destiny.

She's not though is she?

You have the vote, she does not.

[Jakubclaret]

She's not though is she?

You have the vote, she does not.

Her turn will come, it's not my fault she's too young, we've all got to wait for certain things.

[Lancasterclaret]

Her turn will come, it's not my fault she's too young, we've all got to wait for certain things.

Her turn will come, but people are a lot more informed at 16 than they were.

And in pure demographic terms, you need as many voters as possible, from as many groups as possible to make sure the best decisions are made in the best interests of the country.

Too many old people voting isn't a danger if its counterbalanced by too many 16+ voting

And too many 16+ voting is counter balanced by too many old people voting.

[Burnley Ace]

A national ID card one minute, your own special identification number tattooed on your arm the next.

More hyperbole to try to undermine an appropriate and sensible idea.

National ID cards are issued to citizens of all EU countries except Denmark, Ireland and the U.K. Do they all have ID numbers tattooed on their arms or are you just talking ****?

[KateR]

Her turn will come, but people are a lot more informed at 16 than they were.

And in pure demographic terms, you need as many voters as possible, from as many groups as possible to make sure the best decisions are made in the best interests of the country.

Too many old people voting isn't a danger if its counterbalanced by too many 16+ voting

And too many 16+ voting is counter balanced by too many old people voting.

Under 18's are considered children for numerous good and valid reasons, you can not change that or advocate that surely, therefore you're argument could be they are adults and we should let them vote, or we change the official terminology of when one becomes an adult, say 16 and we take away all there rights of children protection, which I do not believe you're advocating

I know a few sensible 14 and 15 year olds to, what if they complain, where do we go, the old are living longer and longer so part of your rationale is to counter balance, so in a few years it will be reduce to 14 then according to your rationale.

The sensible 14 & 15 yr olds I know are all girls, not one boy in the small snapshot of children within my family and also my youngest's friends, none of the boys are what I would call sensible, so maybe you can also just make it all girls who are 16 can have the vote. Obviously this is also wrong and never going to happen, but I believe it is fairly wide spread in the thought that girls mature faster than boys, I really don't understand anyone advocating that we should reduce the age of voting to 16. Thankfully this is not the case for this GE and hope not for any future GE either.

[claret2018]

No one should have the vote. This whole democracy thing is obviously not working as people are idiots, time to revert back to the divine right of kings.

[Lancasterclaret]

Under 18's are considered children for numerous good and valid reasons, you can not change that or advocate that surely, therefore you're argument could be they are adults and we should let them vote, or we change the official terminology of when one becomes an adult, say 16 and we take away all there rights of children protection, which I do not believe you're advocating

I know a few sensible 14 and 15 year olds to, what if they complain, where do we go, the old are living longer and longer so part of your rationale is to counter balance, so in a few years it will be reduce to 14 then according to your rationale.

The sensible 14 & 15 yr olds I know are all girls, not one boy in the small snapshot of children within my family and also my youngest's friends, none of the boys are what I would call sensible, so maybe you can also just make it all girls who are 16 can have the vote. Obviously this is also wrong and never going to happen, but I believe it is fairly wide spread in the thought that girls mature faster than boys, I really don't understand anyone advocating that we should reduce the age of voting to 16. Thankfully this is not the case for this GE and hope not for any future GE either.

I'm talking about 16 to 17 year olds.

So do me a favour, and remove the completely irrelevant 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

BTW, I'm 100% in favour of the idealism and dynamism of youth ahead of the cynicism and terror of change of the old. And in a rapidly changing world, a voter demographic absolutely **** scared of change could do enormous damage to the county.

[Lancasterclaret]

No one should have the vote. This whole democracy thing is obviously not working as people are idiots, time to revert back to the divine right of kings.

Welcome to the board Cersei Lannister

[KateR]

I'm talking about 16 to 17 year olds.

So do me a favour, and remove the completely irrelevant 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

BTW, I'm 100% in favour of the idealism and dynamism of youth ahead of the cynicism and terror of change of the old. And in a rapidly changing world, a voter demographic absolutely **** scared of change could do enormous damage to the county.

No you're talking drivel, but of course only in my opinion, good luck with your crusade

[TheFamilyCat]

I've watched the clip & she raises some valid points, but realistically you've got to look at her position & say men/women of a older age bracket who've worked a great deal of their working lifes, at the end of the day she's 16yrs old & her life is in front of her, I fail to see how she can predict with any certainty about huge generational changes, its speculation on her part, watching it I'm thinking life is tough & that's just the way the cookie crumbles, get over it stop whinging, she's in control of her own destiny.

I'm genuinely on the fence regarding lowering the voting age; yes, young people today have more more access to information but they also have more access to propaganda and lies. Are they able to think critically at that age on what is fact and make decisions in their best interests? I'd say some are and some aren't. But I'd say exactly the same for 26, 36, 46, 56 year olds etc.

Is a 16-year old susceptible to being manipulated into making a decision based on lies? Probably no more so than adults, judging by this board.

When I was 16 I didn't take politics seriously; during the 1992 election our school ran a mock election in school (think it was a BBC thing. Some kid put himself up as the Labour candidate and another weirdo wanted to be the Tory. Being the rebels we are, we formed our own party on the manifesto of challenging some of the school's more ridiculous rules.

We won a landslide and when I asked the deputy head when we would be able to implement our rule changes he pointed out that the school was not a democracy so basically eff off.

It is only now, all these years later that I should've spent the next years banging on about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and THE SINGLE LARGEST EXPRESSION OF DEMOCRACY THE SCHOOL HAD EVER SEEN

[aggi]

It is often forgotten that the act of leaving the EU is not inherently left or right wing. It can't be. It's what happens after we've left that determines this. I think it absolutely, desperately sad that Corbyn has chucked this election away trying to please remainers, in direct opposition to everything he has believed for decades. I expect he'll never forgive himself for this. I don't know when the left will get another opportunity to govern without the EU's rules. When he loses this election - which is utterly inevitable - the Blairites will be back in charge of Labour for the foreseeable future.

It'll be interesting what manifesto Labour go with. I think he should put out 2 separate documents: one with all the plans if we do leave the EU (which will presumably resemble his 2017 manifesto), and one for if we remain (which will have to be considerably different to his 2017 manifesto).

Agreed. The issue is that it's all currently being driven by the Tories and what goes in the Withdrawal Agreement and the subsequent trade deal will set the scene for years to come. I can't picture a Corbyn led labour winning the election outright and having the clout to negotiate their own deal so I fully expect that whatever deal comes through will have state aid rules very similar to the current ones.

I don't agree that Corbyn has chucked the election away trying to please remainers. He's tried to please remainers and leavers and not pleased anyone.

[aggi]

For balance

We have people who are happy to believe that because they haven't met Johnson he can't be a liar.

Then we have this 16 year old on Question Time

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/sta ... 6406418438" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who deserves the vote more?

One-off examples are a bit pointless though. That was deemed newsworthy as it's an exception to what you'd expect from a sixteen year old, not the norm.

[Jakubclaret]

I'm genuinely on the fence regarding lowering the voting age; yes, young people today have more more access to information but they also have more access to propaganda and lies. Are they able to think critically at that age on what is fact and make decisions in their best interests? I'd say some are and some aren't. But I'd say exactly the same for 26, 36, 46, 56 year olds etc.

Is a 16-year old susceptible to being manipulated into making a decision based on lies? Probably no more so than adults, judging by this board.

When I was 16 I didn't take politics seriously; during the 1992 election our school ran a mock election in school (think it was a BBC thing. Some kid put himself up as the Labour candidate and another weirdo wanted to be the Tory. Being the rebels we are, we formed our own party on the manifesto of challenging some of the school's more ridiculous rules.

We won a landslide and when I asked the deputy head when we would be able to implement our rule changes he pointed out that the school was not a democracy so basically eff off.

It is only now, all these years later that I should've spent the next years banging on about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and THE SINGLE LARGEST EXPRESSION OF DEMOCRACY THE SCHOOL HAD EVER SEEN

Lies & truth shouldn't even be the sole deciding factor anyway. You will only ever find anything out for yourself, I don't think people should you have a automatic entitlement to vote anyway, I think it's should be earnt based on a strict criteria, I'd raise the age to 21 & you'd have to be in full-time (25+hrs) employment & qualify also by undergoing a medical passing a psychological test to determine if you are sane enough, I think giving everybody the right to vote can be a dangerous thing for society.

[TheFamilyCat]

Lies & truth shouldn't even be the sole deciding factor anyway. You will only ever find anything out for yourself, I don't think people should you have a automatic entitlement to vote anyway, I think it's should be earnt based on a strict criteria, I'd raise the age to 21 & you'd have to be in full-time (25+hrs) employment & qualify also by undergoing a medical passing a psychological test to determine if you are sane enough, I think giving everybody the right to vote can be a dangerous thing for society.

Right, that's it. You are definitely a spoof account. Well done, you had us.

[Lowbankclaret]

I'm talking about 16 to 17 year olds.

So do me a favour, and remove the completely irrelevant 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

BTW, I'm 100% in favour of the idealism and dynamism of youth ahead of the cynicism and terror of change of the old. And in a rapidly changing world, a voter demographic absolutely **** scared of change could do enormous damage to the county.

Your not normally prone to say things that sound questionable.

If the old are in terror of change, why then did they vote to come out of the EU.

Apparently staying according to you guys is the status quo and no change so the old should have voted for that.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Lies & truth shouldn't even be the sole deciding factor anyway. You will only ever find anything out for yourself, I don't think people should you have a automatic entitlement to vote anyway, I think it's should be earnt based on a strict criteria, I'd raise the age to 21 & you'd have to be in full-time (25+hrs) employment & qualify also by undergoing a medical passing a psychological test to determine if you are sane enough, I think giving everybody the right to vote can be a dangerous thing for society.

I see you don’t fancy a minimum IQ.

[Jakubclaret]

Your not normally prone to say things that sound questionable.

If the old are in terror of change, why then did they vote to come out of the EU.

Apparently staying according to you guys is the status quo and no change so the old should have voted for that.

I picked up on that but I couldn't be bothered continuing on the line of argument, it's contradictory really it's the older generation voting for change & the younger wanting to stick with the same thing.

[jrgbfc]

Your not normally prone to say things that sound questionable.

If the old are in terror of change, why then did they vote to come out of the EU.

Apparently staying according to you guys is the status quo and no change so the old should have voted for that.

Because a lot of them seem to think once we leave we'll go back to being a global superpower with a massive empire and all our problems are caused by those bloody foreigners interfering in our affairs.

[Lowbankclaret]

Because a lot of them seem to think once we leave we'll go back to being a global superpower with a massive empire and all our problems are caused by those bloody foreigners interfering in our affairs.

What a load of clap trap.

The empire builders are the EU.

We don’t want to go back to empires, they don’t work.

But with the EU not bleeding us dry, I feel we are better off away from the empire building EU.

[jrgbfc]

What a load of clap trap.

The empire builders are the EU.

We don’t want to go back to empires, they don’t work.

But with the EU not bleeding us dry, I feel we are better off away from the empire building EU.

It's not the EU who imposed austerity on us, or are leaving our public services to rot. Its OK though cos I'm sure once we leave the Tories will start investing in the NHS and our rail network, particularly in the North. That's what they're famous for after all

[Lancasterclaret]

Your not normally prone to say things that sound questionable.

If the old are in terror of change, why then did they vote to come out of the EU.

Apparently staying according to you guys is the status quo and no change so the old should have voted for that.

Because they think the change will be back to pre-EU.

[KateR]

Because a lot of them seem to think once we leave we'll go back to being a global superpower with a massive empire and all our problems are caused by those bloody foreigners interfering in our affairs.

more drivel or poor fishing.

[Jakubclaret]

Because they think the change will be back to pre-EU.

I know what you meant, it was a contradiction albeit, aren't that generation better placed to accurately judge that pre-EU life was better back in those days, I can't think of a more suitable group of people to be able to accurately judge. The younger generation certainly can't there wasn't born then. Which generation is it wise to trust, the 1s that can compare change or the 1s that weren't even embryos, seriously?

[AndyClaret]

Jo Swinson currently being Brillo'd on BBC2, like a cat playing with a mouse.....

[Lowbankclaret]

Because they think the change will be back to pre-EU.

No we believe it will be a new UK, a better one.

[Lowbankclaret]

It's not the EU who imposed austerity on us, or are leaving our public services to rot. Its OK though cos I'm sure once we leave the Tories will start investing in the NHS and our rail network, particularly in the North. That's what they're famous for after all

No matter what you think about austerity.

The BANKERS gambled all the money away.

And what’s more they are doing it again.

[jrgbfc]

I know what you meant, it was a contradiction albeit, aren't that generation better placed to accurately judge that pre-EU life was better back in those days, I can't think of a more suitable group of people to be able to accurately judge. The younger generation certainly can't there wasn't born then. Which generation is it wise to trust, the 1s that can compare change or the 1s that weren't even embryos, seriously?

The world has changed though, whether people like it or not. Going back to a less globalised, pre internet age isn't going to happen.

[Jakubclaret]

The world has changed though, whether people like it or not. Going back to a less globalised, pre internet age isn't going to happen.

I was assuming that had no bearing with the decision making process & lots of other reasons aside globalisation & the Internet age, I think the elderly are well aware that things have progressed from the penny farthings & the bakelite valve radio's.

[KateR]

The world has changed though, whether people like it or not. Going back to a less globalised, pre internet age isn't going to happen.

I am confused, (yes easy I know) but who exactly is it that wants to go back and why do you think they want to go back?

[Jakubclaret]

I am confused, (yes easy I know) but who exactly is it that wants to go back and why do you think they want to go back?

It’s a remainer myth,that the elderly want to time travel backwards, most I know are forward thinking people, good question by the way.

[KateR]

It’s a remainer myth,that the elderly want to time travel backwards, most I know are forward thinking people, good question by the way.

I have seen no expert proclaiming this, I am old, I am forward looking person I think, what's past is gone, something's were bad, something's were good but something's are much better now and will ever get better. I was around before we entered the EU, to be honest I can't really remember any change except not having to have different queues at airports and passing through immigration faster which was better. I would say each decade has seen improvements in the general way of life, not down to EU or even which government was in power, certain events triggered worldwide have had effects and I believe the 2020's will be another decade of improvements generally speaking and hopefully I will be there at the end of it to celebrate. Certainly hope we are still not discussing Brexit though but am sure it will get blamed for every upset going forward if it finally happens.

[KateR]

Has mass tactical voting occurred previously during a GE? It's not something I can remember but spent numerous years out of the country pre tinternet days and did not vote during those years so I certainly was not paying anywhere near as much attention then as I have to the last few where I can not remember it being a factor

Additionally it seems social media is playing a much bigger role at the start of this one even to the one in 2017, thoughts?

[aggi]

I am confused, (yes easy I know) but who exactly is it that wants to go back and why do you think they want to go back?

When you look at the Lord Ashcroft polls just after the Brexit vote the majority of Brexit voters thought that life in Britain today is worse than it was 30 years ago. I suspect it's that attitude which makes people think that Brexit voters are harking back to years gone by.

As to why they think that, that's one for the Brexit voters.

[dsr]

The world has changed though, whether people like it or not. Going back to a less globalised, pre internet age isn't going to happen.

Quite the reverse, in fact. The EU is the protectionist inward-looking entity here; with Brexit, the UK has the chance to become an unfettered free trade nation with anyone that wants free trade. Yes, even the EU, if they want free trade with us.

[If it be your will]

Agreed. The issue is that it's all currently being driven by the Tories and what goes in the Withdrawal Agreement and the subsequent trade deal will set the scene for years to come. I can't picture a Corbyn led labour winning the election outright and having the clout to negotiate their own deal so I fully expect that whatever deal comes through will have state aid rules very similar to the current ones.

I don't agree that Corbyn has chucked the election away trying to please remainers. He's tried to please remainers and leavers and not pleased anyone.

Your last line is simplistic and shows an abject lack of understanding of what has happened in the Labour party in the last 12 months. The first thing to establish is that Corbyn and Mcdonnell are leavers. They've always been leavers. They've articulately explained why they're leavers many, many times in the past. I agree with them as to why they want to leave the EU. If they really have changed their mind in some 'Road to Demascus' moment, then they need to offer an explanation in order for this dramatic reversal to look credible. They have offered no explanation.

What really happened is this: They had opponents - largely in the Blair camp - and supporters in the socialist camp. Corbyn and McDonnell faced a difficult choice. They could either please their supporters or they could please their opponents. At every turn they foolishly chose the latter - mandatory reselection, IHRA, and now Brexit. Each time they went with appeasing the Blairites. But they were never going to please their opponents whatever they did, and now they're trapped desperately pretending to support things - e.g. 'remain' - they absolutely don't, and looking utterly ridiculous in the process. They were even happy to hang their staunchest supporters like Cris Williamson out to dry to try and please the Blairites.

That's how they've upset both leavers and remainers. Not by triangulation on Brexit, nor by some ham-fisted attempt at uniting the leave and remain camps. They've upset everyone by becoming ridiculous, disingenuous, and embarrassing. The result of this election will be every blairites dream: a heavy Corbyn defeat.