Just out of interest has anyone else noticed the lense in the glasses of JC's right hand eye or if you are watching on tv the lense on the left. It is radically different to the other lense. Hope he is ok!
Jeremy has eye problems, Boris has lie problems.
Osborn has cry problems, Nigel Lawson has dye problems. Not one of them has a shy problem.
The idea that EU citizens should be given the right to vote in our national election for the first time when Parliament has already approved in principle a deal to allow us to leave the EU is just so off the wall that it must surely be getting put forward as a bet.
It’s not off the wall at all. They have been given the right to remain. It’s an important gesture welcoming them into the franchise post Brexit.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
And on the other point, other than party advantage why stop with EU national? If you believe in the principle it should include all foreign nationals.
They are both sensible policy debates to be had (what is an adult; and is voting about where you come from and loyalty, or where you are), but there is a debate.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!
Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.
I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.
All the govt has to do is offer a royal commission to look into votes at 16 and explain that only two other EU countries allow non nationals to vote in their national.elections.
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
Sure, but you'll only get one after you fight the general election. Why are you so scared of that?
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
If people are fully mature at 16, why is education/training mandatory until 18? As for the latter, it isn't reciprocated, and it is a blatant gerrymander given the circumstances.
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
The idea that EU citizens should be given the right to vote in our national election for the first time when Parliament has already approved in principle a deal to allow us to leave the EU is just so off the wall that it must surely be getting put forward as a bet.
It’s not off the wall at all. They have been given the right to remain. It’s an important gesture welcoming them into the franchise post Brexit.
I cannot believe you are being serious. There is a world of difference between having a right to remain somewhere and a right to vote in a national election. Even the EU has never gone that far.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.
On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.
On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
Actually - having spent many years as a councillor visiting sixth formers in schools - you are wrong. 16 and 17 year olds are, generalising, very engaged. Disengagement sets in once they leave school and it’s the twentysomethings who are closer to what you describe.
Laura Kuenssberg has just said that in no EU country can citizens of other EU countries vote. And those are countries that ostensibly to stay in the European Union.
Whatever the result of this vote, it is going to provoke a great deal of discussion.
Ex Tories voting for it were Bebb, Clarke, Greening, Grieve, P Hammond, Sandbach
Boles, Burt, Gauke, Letwin, Rudd and Rory Stewart abstained
Does anyone really believe the likes of Clarke, Hammond etc in their claims that the WAB could ever have passed if reliant on their votes?
Nobody does. A lie that does them no favours.
But the thing is, if you think the WAIB couldn't get through the present House of Commons, you're kind of implying that the LDs are putting their own short-term political interests above their declared Number One Political Principle by facilitating an early election ...
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
Definition of a child soldier A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
I get the impression that the SNP and Lib Dems are prepared for an election with or without these amendments. Meanwhile the two largest parties bicker.
Definition of a child soldier A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.
It has long been the UN definition/age. As brought into stark relief for example in Rwanda. Romeo Dallaire's books on this are required reading.
The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!
Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.
I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.
FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
Saying that 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some are immature and not politically engaged is the same as saying that over 80s shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some have dementia.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
Actually - having spent many years as a councillor visiting sixth formers in schools - you are wrong. 16 and 17 year olds are, generalising, very engaged. Disengagement sets in once they leave school and it’s the twentysomethings who are closer to what you describe.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.
On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.
On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
But these are not all allowed at the same age now. Smoking is allowed from 16 and driving is 17. 16 year olds do not have full legal rights but they are cretainly allowed to sign a contract.
The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!
Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.
I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.
And should not be allowed to.
Careful. Remember Enoch Powell considered ethnic Indians to be more intelligent than White Europeans.
VEUC would lose the Tories the election. Will VAS and VEUC really go through, wham, committee stage treated as a formality? What a coup!
This is Labour we are talking about. They might THINK it would be a whizzo wheeze to hurt the Tories. But in reality, their game playing with the electorate will likely prove a net negative. It is just the sort of issue that will swing Brexit voters to the Tories. You know, the Brexit Party currently at around 12% in the polls....
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
Sure, but you'll only get one after you fight the general election. Why are you so scared of that?
Because a GE won't resolve the problem whereas a referendum will.
The people who oppose a referendum but want a GE are those "democrats" who want to bulldoze their way through on 35% of the vote because they know they can't win 50% in a referendum anymore (and never would have if they had been required to spell out what Brexit actually meant before we voted).
The last time we had a GE supposedly to resolve the Brexit issue by giving a mandate to May's plan. When she lost her majority we were then told it had nothing to do with Brexit. Leavers would pull exactly the same stunt this time if Bozo fails like May did
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
Not sure of the delay but one Bill affecting all adult rights seems sensible. Hard to argue against.
And in EU nationals, again why just the EU? Wouldn’t be for Labour electoral advantage would it? Scared of the settled, right wing US or Aussie views.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
Why 'at least five years' ?
I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.
FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
Saying that 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some are immature and not politically engaged is the same as saying that over 80s shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some have dementia.
Doesn't that also apply to 15 year olds or 13 year olds? There will always be some mature and some immature. The question is when the maturity step change happens. 18 seems to be the best one to me, as that is when most start working full time or living alone at university.
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
Most people in the country at large are more concerned with love Island than who is in number 10. Whether 16 years know enough about politics is irrelevant to the question unless we are planning a test for all citizens before they can vote to make sure everyone knows their Erskine May from their Theresa May.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it?
Very simple. You're in favour of sex with children being legal.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
Why 'at least five years' ?
I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
5 years is the maximum time between elections. It means no parliament can change the rules to get reelected.
I fully support 16 year olds being able to vote. Just so long as they also get the rights to do things that they are not allowed to do. That includes:
- Be on the battlefront in wars - Drive - Smoke - Drink alcohol - Be on juries - Leave full time education - Have credit cards - Gamble - Marry without parental consent - Get tattoos
Unless you support 16 year olds being able to do all of the above then you shouldn't support votes at 16.
The only reason anyone supports votes at 16 is for gerrymandering purposes.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
Sure, but you'll only get one after you fight the general election. Why are you so scared of that?
Because a GE won't resolve the problem whereas a referendum will.
The people who oppose a referendum but want a GE are those "democrats" who want to bulldoze their way through on 35% of the vote because they know they can't win 50% in a referendum anymore (and never would have if they had been required to spell out what Brexit actually meant before we voted).
There was no route to a second referendum in this House of Commons this is probably the only way to bring about some form of resolution.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.
FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
Saying that 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some are immature and not politically engaged is the same as saying that over 80s shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some have dementia.
Weeeeeell, now you mention it.
Your argument could of course be made about 12 and 13 year olds. The cut-off is arbitrary to some degree. It is a matter of judgement as to where the cut-off applies, and my feeling is that 18 is about right.
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
The average 16 year old will defer to their parents on politics !!
Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10. Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
The average 16 year old will defer to their parents on politics !!
Yes, someone either didn't have kids or had some very unusual ones.
The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!
Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.
I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.
And should not be allowed to.
Careful. Remember Enoch Powell considered ethnic Indians to be more intelligent than White Europeans.
A good argument against if ever there was one. Standing on the other side of the argement from Powell is never a bad place to be in most cases.
On the youth: a little anecdote from years ago. I was walking the hound. There was a gang talking in low voices in a playground. I passed by. And was astounding they were discussing politics.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.
On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.
On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
But these are not all allowed at the same age now. Smoking is allowed from 16 and driving is 17. 16 year olds do not have full legal rights but they are cretainly allowed to sign a contract.
Can anyone tell me what time we'll get the results of the votes in Parliament today? I'd rather avoid the proceedings all day for the sake of my blood pressure and the integrity of my computer screen. Thanks!
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
The age of consent for everything should be 17 and then people who have had at least 1 year's experience of adult life can qualify to vote at 18.
Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
Question is whether Bercow perverts the rulings to get his policy preferences.
It is not Bercow, it is Lindsay Hoyle's decision
There will be a lot of MPs deciding their vote for the next Speaker on the basis of what he decides..... If these changes get through...bye bye Speaker Hoyle.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.
On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.
On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
But these are not all allowed at the same age now. Smoking is allowed from 16 and driving is 17. 16 year olds do not have full legal rights but they are cretainly allowed to sign a contract.
And finally voting is not a contract.
Smoking is now 18.
Voting us as important if not more important than signing a contract. Or at least we should consider it so. Yhe vhanges you dupport woukd cheapen it even further.
Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?
I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
Why 'at least five years' ?
I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
5 years is the maximum time between elections. It means no parliament can change the rules to get reelected.
LOL. The votes of sixteen year olds are not going to determine an election in that manner.
I guess the DUP aren't particularly keen on an election but are they against the gerrymandering attempt to get kids and foreigners added to vote at the General Election? What about the former Tories etc?
These are wrecking gerrymandering amendments and should stand or fall on their own.
MarqueeMark says: "There will be a lot of MPs deciding their vote for the next Speaker on the basis of what he decides..... If these changes get through...bye bye Speaker Hoyle.
Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
Question is whether Bercow perverts the rulings to get his policy preferences.
It is not Bercow, it is Lindsay Hoyle's decision
There will be a lot of MPs deciding their vote for the next Speaker on the basis of what he decides..... If these changes get through...bye bye Speaker Hoyle.
The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!
Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.
I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.
And should not be allowed to.
Careful. Remember Enoch Powell considered ethnic Indians to be more intelligent than White Europeans.
A good argument against if ever there was one. Standing on the other side of the argement from Powell is never a bad place to be in most cases.
Comments
Rank cowardice if so but I wouldn't put it past him.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/could-boris-johnson-have-passed-his-brexit-bill/
I'm not entirely convinced, personally.
I nearly said "as a matter of principle" then.
They are both sensible policy debates to be had (what is an adult; and is voting about where you come from and loyalty, or where you are), but there is a debate.
Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
As for Veuc….??
FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.
On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
They can't even be live armed on guard in the UK (or at least couldn't).
Whatever the result of this vote, it is going to provoke a great deal of discussion.
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/
Definition of a child soldier
A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.
VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?
VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.
See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
And finally voting is not a contract.
The people who oppose a referendum but want a GE are those "democrats" who want to bulldoze their way through on 35% of the vote because they know they can't win 50% in a referendum anymore (and never would have if they had been required to spell out what Brexit actually meant before we voted).
The last time we had a GE supposedly to resolve the Brexit issue by giving a mandate to May's plan. When she lost her majority we were then told it had nothing to do with Brexit. Leavers would pull exactly the same stunt this time if Bozo fails like May did
And in EU nationals, again why just the EU? Wouldn’t be for Labour electoral advantage would it? Scared of the settled, right wing US or Aussie views.
I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
What a generation of political pygmies we have.
- Be on the battlefront in wars
- Drive
- Smoke
- Drink alcohol
- Be on juries
- Leave full time education
- Have credit cards
- Gamble
- Marry without parental consent
- Get tattoos
Unless you support 16 year olds being able to do all of the above then you shouldn't support votes at 16.
The only reason anyone supports votes at 16 is for gerrymandering purposes.
Your argument could of course be made about 12 and 13 year olds. The cut-off is arbitrary to some degree. It is a matter of judgement as to where the cut-off applies, and my feeling is that 18 is about right.
Most of the world would appear to agree with me.
Are you a big "Happy Days" fan?
That’s why we won WW1 - in the end it was just the 14 year olds left, dodging under the bullets.
And when he decides to say no to members opposite, he inexplicably slips into Russian.
They were unimpressed with Gordon Brown.
https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com/Divisions/Details/732?byMember=false#notrecorded
Just sayin', Lindsay.....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1189202970820390914
Voting us as important if not more important than signing a contract. Or at least we should consider it so. Yhe vhanges you dupport woukd cheapen it even further.
Con 2 / 2.02
No overall maj 2.24 / 2.26
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.136297311
These are wrecking gerrymandering amendments and should stand or fall on their own.
Just sayin', Lindsay....."
Let`s hope he`s reading PB!