Can someone better informed than me please explain why these amendments won’t be taken?
I though the only limit was that an amendment be supported, and be within the remit of the title of the Bill. Since this Bill is all about the conditions applying to an election it’s not clear to me why they ought not to be allowed.
Edit - I’m sure you’re right I just want to learn.
Nigel_Foremain said: "Better take away votes for old folk then, as many are less compus mentus than many 16 year olds . Someone earlier said people that don't have an interest in the future of the UK should be denied, so that rules out old folks (partic if they have no children)! "
My father, age 83, has Alzheimer's disease and voted Leave in 2016. A year ago he said to me, "What`s all this on the news about Brexit. What`s Brexit?"
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
Hardly the same. The FTPA is a political construct which has been in place for less than 10 years.
Votes at 18 is a political construct too, albeit one that has been in place a few decades longer.
if by 'a few' you mean 4 decades more (in 1970), and had an entire act devoted to it rather than an ammendment by the back door, then sure..
Any idea whether the HOL had a good look at ROPA 1969 which lowered the voting age to 18, or do they tend to stay out of issues to do with who the lower House wants to elect them?
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
Kate Mccann of Sky says that the government will halt the bill if the amendments are passed and added that votes for 16 -17 would need to go to the electoral commission and would require at least 6 months to consider
She went on to say there is an expectation from both the government and labour that they will not be accepted
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
I believe that MPs choose the Speaker before they take the oath.
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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
Can they pay taxes?
No taxation without representation?
They can pay taxes from the moment they start spending money in the shops. VAT is levied on lots of things these days and is a similar size of the tax pie to income tax.
They wish to retain their exactly the same franchise as the last IndyRef for the next one. EU citizens next time round would be a 1 point swing over the previous result - and the they only need 5 points changing hands for the win.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
Hardly the same. The FTPA is a political construct which has been in place for less than 10 years.
Votes at 18 is a political construct too, albeit one that has been in place a few decades longer.
Harold Wilson introduced it for the 1970 election, and famously said to his pollster Robert Worcester after that election: "We gave them the vote and the buggers didn't use it", meaning that their turnout was very poor compared to what Wilson and others were hoping for.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. It's not fair to compare it to the right to have sex, and 16yos and 17yos shouldn't be in the armed forces anyway. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
Lots of foreign citizens already have the vote. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live here have been able to vote in the UK for decades. No good reason not to extend that to EU citizens IMO.
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
I believe that MPs choose the Speaker before they take the oath.
That's like all the people sending up fireworks at the minute don't they know it's far too early Guy Fawkes isn't for another week! Why send fireworks up now? It's so inconsiderate as it scares animals ... my dog got so scared last night he almost knocked our Christmas Tree over ...
When & if this gets through the Commons, we have the fun of Lord Adonis and Pals playing silly buggers with it in the Lords.
Time for Manifesto commitments for a big shake up of the second chamber then.....
It's really funny how Brexiteers just reflexively come out with these threats of retaliation whenever anyone suggests they might not get their own way. It was just the same when they didn't like the Supreme Court ruling. I can't help wondering whether when anyone does something they don't like in real life they immediately yell "I'll get you for that!"
If we are to define adulthood at 16 with all that comes with it - voting, contracts, debt, drinks, gambling etc - then we should do so after careful and considered debate.
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.
I think there's a case for saying that adulthood can come on gradually rather than in one day and having different thresholds for different activities.
I thought that was the practical British way, and that it was the revolutionary Continentals who liked to have an excessively ordered system.
It may be that things are gradual and not rigid. But given what we say they cannot be trusted to decide for themselves at 16 is voting one we should? It's a more difficult question than just pretended.
Maybe you could give teenagers effectively half a vote, by having them vote in separate constituencies with boundaries that would give them twice as many electors? Ease them in to it gradually, without giving them too large an influence.
There are lots of ideas that have merit depending on what you want to achieve. I agree that rushing to reduce the voting age is simplistic.
Perhaps if our politics was "less winner has quasi-dictatorial power" it would be easier to allow more people to contribute to that politics by voting without it feeling like it would bring the whole edifice crashing down.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. It's not fair to compare it to the right to have sex, and 16yos and 17yos shouldn't be in the armed forces anyway. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
Lots of foreign citizens already have the vote. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live here have been able to vote in the UK for decades. No good reason not to extend that to EU citizens IMO.
There is good reason to remove it from anyone who is not a British citizen.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. Plus most 16yos are very gullible...
I'll repeat the question - if that characterisation of most 16 year olds is true, how is it different from a significant part of the existing electorate ?
As for the comparison with jury service, it is clearly absurd to compare the infinitesimal effect of a single electoral vote with that of a juror's decision. Which is perhaps why there is an upper age limit on jury service...
To take the second point first, no it is not absurd in the slightest. Voting in a general election and serving on a jury are both activities which presuppose a level of informed responsibility for other people in society. If a 16yo should be able to vote as a part of an electorate of 70000 I can't see why the same arguments shouldn't lead to the conclusion that he or she should be eligible for service on a jury of 12.
First point: yes of course some adults are as gullible as any 14yo, but gullibility tends to reduce somewhat when human beings come out of childhood.
I think a good question to ask is what major changes people would be happy to see through at such short notice via such a method if they disagreed with it.
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
I believe that MPs choose the Speaker before they take the oath.
Heh, one vote Sinn Fein could join in on.
Not that one again.
It's not the oath they object to, it's Westminster claiming the right to make laws for [part of] Ireland. Therefore they abstain from Westminster, oath or not.
When & if this gets through the Commons, we have the fun of Lord Adonis and Pals playing silly buggers with it in the Lords.
Time for Manifesto commitments for a big shake up of the second chamber then.....
It's really funny how Brexiteers just reflexively come out with these threats of retaliation whenever anyone suggests they might not get their own way. It was just the same when they didn't like the Supreme Court ruling. I can't help wondering whether when anyone does something they don't like in real life they immediately yell "I'll get you for that!"
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. Plus most 16yos are very gullible...
I'll repeat the question - if that characterisation of most 16 year olds is true, how is it different from a significant part of the existing electorate ?
As for the comparison with jury service, it is clearly absurd to compare the infinitesimal effect of a single electoral vote with that of a juror's decision. Which is perhaps why there is an upper age limit on jury service...
To take the second point first, no it is not absurd in the slightest. Voting in a general election and serving on a jury are both activities which presuppose a level of informed responsibility for other people in society. If a 16yo should be able to vote as a part of an electorate of 70000 I can't see why the same arguments shouldn't lead to the conclusion that he or she should be eligible for service on a jury of 12.
First point: yes of course some adults are as gullible as any 14yo, but gullibility tends to reduce somewhat when human beings come out of childhood.
Indeed. It’s unlikely but the vote of one person could be the difference between a majority for peace or a majority for war. At least as important as any jury service.
When & if this gets through the Commons, we have the fun of Lord Adonis and Pals playing silly buggers with it in the Lords.
Time for Manifesto commitments for a big shake up of the second chamber then.....
It's really funny how Brexiteers just reflexively come out with these threats of retaliation whenever anyone suggests they might not get their own way. It was just the same when they didn't like the Supreme Court ruling. I can't help wondering whether when anyone does something they don't like in real life they immediately yell "I'll get you for that!"
When & if this gets through the Commons, we have the fun of Lord Adonis and Pals playing silly buggers with it in the Lords.
Time for Manifesto commitments for a big shake up of the second chamber then.....
It's really funny how Brexiteers just reflexively come out with these threats of retaliation whenever anyone suggests they might not get their own way. It was just the same when they didn't like the Supreme Court ruling. I can't help wondering whether when anyone does something they don't like in real life they immediately yell "I'll get you for that!"
It is quite funny to observe how people act when they don't get their own way isn't it?
El_Capitano said "“Liberals” telling other people what they shouldn’t think? That’s a new one."
J S Mill was clear on this. Doesn`t extend to children.
Jolly good. I’m not sure he had a monopoly on liberal thought in the 1850s, let alone in the 21st century.
But by the same measure is it fair to say the view in question is 'a new one' for liberals? Is that not acting as though alternative liberal views have a monopoly on the question?
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
I believe that MPs choose the Speaker before they take the oath.
Heh, one vote Sinn Fein could join in on.
Not that one again.
It's not the oath they object to, it's Westminster claiming the right to make laws for [part of] Ireland. Therefore they abstain from Westminster, oath or not.
SF MPs have claimed and been paid allowances for staff, accommodation, and administration.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. It's not fair to compare it to the right to have sex, and 16yos and 17yos shouldn't be in the armed forces anyway. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
Lots of foreign citizens already have the vote. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live here have been able to vote in the UK for decades. No good reason not to extend that to EU citizens IMO.
There is good reason to remove it from anyone who is not a British citizen.
Sigh. And disenfranchise a large chunk of Northern Ireland?
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
I believe that MPs choose the Speaker before they take the oath.
Heh, one vote Sinn Fein could join in on.
Not that one again.
It's not the oath they object to, it's Westminster claiming the right to make laws for [part of] Ireland. Therefore they abstain from Westminster, oath or not.
SF MPs have claimed and been paid allowances for staff, accommodation, and administration.
Yes, they do so in order to fulfil their constituency duties, those constituencies being in Ireland. But they don't accept the jurisdiction of Westminster, which is why they abstain from it, this being a more fundamental objection than to the oath.
There are amendments to: include registered EU nationals; change the date to 9 Dec; change the date to 7 May; hold a referendum on 26 March; include 16/17 year olds
There are amendments to: include registered EU nationals; change the date to 9 Dec; change the date to 7 May; hold a referendum on 26 March; include 16/17 year olds
Do you know if the referendum amendment is to hold a referendum instead of a general election, or following it?
There are amendments to: include registered EU nationals; change the date to 9 Dec; change the date to 7 May; hold a referendum on 26 March; include 16/17 year olds
Do you know if the referendum amendment is to hold a referendum instead of a general election, or following it?
There are amendments to: include registered EU nationals; change the date to 9 Dec; change the date to 7 May; hold a referendum on 26 March; include 16/17 year olds
Do you know if the referendum amendment is to hold a referendum instead of a general election, or following it?
The BBC says preceding it, the election to be on 7 May 2020.
I know Brexit and this on-off GE consumes all the attention on here but there are, gasp, a number of other interesting stories out there:-
1. The Grenfell report, the criticism of the Fire Service and the resignation of the head of the Fire Service. 2. Yet another inquiry into the inquiry into Operation Midland. 3. IS taking over the camps where they were held prisoner, as a result of the Turkish fight with the Kurds, and what this means for the possibility of IS regrouping / mutating under another leader. 4. The protests in Iraq and what this might lead to. 5. The Dispatches programme on contacts between civil servants and US trade negotiators re medicine pricing.
If BJ pulls the election bill. He will rightly be seen as chicken! He went around calling people chlorenated chicken or frieghtened of voters and the like. He cannot have it both ways...
If BJ pulls the election bill. He will rightly be seen as chicken! He went around calling people chlorenated chicken or frieghtened of voters and the like. He cannot have it both ways...
Did he say he'd like an election in which the entire electoral system is rigged against him by the opposition? I don't think so!
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. It's not fair to compare it to the right to have sex, and 16yos and 17yos shouldn't be in the armed forces anyway. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
Lots of foreign citizens already have the vote. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live here have been able to vote in the UK for decades. No good reason not to extend that to EU citizens IMO.
There is good reason to remove it from anyone who is not a British citizen.
Depending on your POV. I think there is a very logical reason to say anyone who is a British Citizen or who has paid tax for the last year. No taxation without representation. If we do not want foreigners voting then they should not have to pay tax, or at least significantly less. that seems fair to me.
rpjs said: "Richard_Tyndall said: There is good reason to remove it from anyone who is not a British citizen.
"Sigh. And disenfranchise a large chunk of Northern Ireland?"
Now, now - I think he meant Great Britain & NI.
Yes but there is a large number of people in NI that do not consider themselves British citizens[1], and would not want to get the documentation required to register to vote if Richard has his way.
There are amendments to: include registered EU nationals; change the date to 9 Dec; change the date to 7 May; hold a referendum on 26 March; include 16/17 year olds
Surely only the second and third (9/12, 7/5/20) are within the scope of the bill?
As far as I am concerned, regardless of whether the amendments for 16s or EU Citz is passed, it is now fair game for a future majority government to address the integrity of our voting system by applying reasonable Voter ID checks at all future elections.
The intent is clearly there on the part of opposition parties to gerrymander so for the sake of democracy a Conservative government should move to protect peoples faith in their vote.
In the US a lot of trees seem to go up in mid September and carry Halloween decorations until replaced by Xmas ones on 1 November
Actually, Christmassy stuff doesn't really start here until after Thanksgiving.
The tree I saw in the lodge in Kentucky looked very Christmassy and I had to look closely to see it was actually a Halloween tree. They told me the Xmas decs will go up after Halloween.
If BJ pulls the election bill. He will rightly be seen as chicken! He went around calling people chlorenated chicken or frieghtened of voters and the like. He cannot have it both ways...
Did he say he'd like an election in which the entire electoral system is rigged against him by the opposition? I don't think so!
I thought Brexit was about democracy? It sounds like BJ is a chicken unless it is on his terms...
El_Capitano said "“Liberals” telling other people what they shouldn’t think? That’s a new one."
J S Mill was clear on this. Doesn`t extend to children.
Should children be allowed to get married? Or have sex? Or drive cars and motorbikes? Should the police be allowed to interrogate children without an adult present? Change their name by deed poll? Fly planes and helicopters?
I know Brexit and this on-off GE consumes all the attention on here but there are, gasp, a number of other interesting stories out there:-
1. The Grenfell report, the criticism of the Fire Service and the resignation of the head of the Fire Service. 2. Yet another inquiry into the inquiry into Operation Midland. 3. IS taking over the camps where they were held prisoner, as a result of the Turkish fight with the Kurds, and what this means for the possibility of IS regrouping / mutating under another leader. 4. The protests in Iraq and what this might lead to. 5. The Dispatches programme on contacts between civil servants and US trade negotiators re medicine pricing.
Just saying ......
The lack of attention these things are getting is another example of the infantile state that Brexiteers have brought us to.
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
Practical point: presumably you have to have a Speaker to swear in MPs. But if there are no sworn in MPs to vote in a new Speaker......?
I believe that MPs choose the Speaker before they take the oath.
Heh, one vote Sinn Fein could join in on.
Not that one again.
It's not the oath they object to, it's Westminster claiming the right to make laws for [part of] Ireland. Therefore they abstain from Westminster, oath or not.
SF MPs have claimed and been paid allowances for staff, accommodation, and administration.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. It's not fair to compare it to the right to have sex, and 16yos and 17yos shouldn't be in the armed forces anyway. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
Lots of foreign citizens already have the vote. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live here have been able to vote in the UK for decades. No good reason not to extend that to EU citizens IMO.
There is good reason to remove it from anyone who is not a British citizen.
Depending on your POV. I think there is a very logical reason to say anyone who is a British Citizen or who has paid tax for the last year. No taxation without representation. If we do not want foreigners voting then they should not have to pay tax, or at least significantly less. that seems fair to me.
I'd be careful with that suggestion. Suppose a future government offered people a 1% reduction in their basic rate of income tax in return for surrendering the vote. You could see a lot of people at the lower end of the income range voluntarily disenfranchising themselves, shifting politics further away from the have-nots.
I know Brexit and this on-off GE consumes all the attention on here but there are, gasp, a number of other interesting stories out there:-
1. The Grenfell report, the criticism of the Fire Service and the resignation of the head of the Fire Service. 2. Yet another inquiry into the inquiry into Operation Midland. 3. IS taking over the camps where they were held prisoner, as a result of the Turkish fight with the Kurds, and what this means for the possibility of IS regrouping / mutating under another leader. 4. The protests in Iraq and what this might lead to. 5. The Dispatches programme on contacts between civil servants and US trade negotiators re medicine pricing.
Just saying ......
Also some interesting developments in the UK's relationship with Huawei (though admittedly this is from yesterday);
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1335241 It appears that the UK is a good place for China right now, on two counts at least. One is Arm confirming that some of its UK-developed architectures are outside the scope of current U.S. export restrictions. The second is news over the weekend suggesting the British Prime Minister is set to allow Huawei supply to non-contentious parts of the 5G network....
Comments
I though the only limit was that an amendment be supported, and be within the remit of the title of the Bill. Since this Bill is all about the conditions applying to an election it’s not clear to me why they ought not to be allowed.
Edit - I’m sure you’re right I just want to learn.
No idea, though Bercow was trolling us all a bit earlier on.
My father, age 83, has Alzheimer's disease and voted Leave in 2016. A year ago he said to me, "What`s all this on the news about Brexit. What`s Brexit?"
Another Delay Repay claim will soon be on its way.
On topic: We're going to get hammered, aren't we?
Hell, the shopping channel QVC thinks it begins in July.
https://www.qvcuk.com/content/home-and-kitchen/christmas-in-july.html
(Don't click the link - just added to show)
She went on to say there is an expectation from both the government and labour that they will not be accepted
They wish to retain their exactly the same franchise as the last IndyRef for the next one. EU citizens next time round would be a 1 point swing over the previous result - and the they only need 5 points changing hands for the win.
A comparison I would draw is with the late great David Bowie, who of course had one blue eye and one green one due to a childhood accident.
He sold 140 million albums as well as being a style icon.
I'd hate to listen to her when she's prolix...
(Edit - have turned the sound down.)
If we are to define adulthood at 16 with all that comes with it - voting, contracts, debt, drinks, gambling etc - then we should do so after careful and considered debate.
There are lots of ideas that have merit depending on what you want to achieve. I agree that rushing to reduce the voting age is simplistic.
Perhaps if our politics was "less winner has quasi-dictatorial power" it would be easier to allow more people to contribute to that politics by voting without it feeling like it would bring the whole edifice crashing down.
J S Mill was clear on this. Doesn`t extend to children.
First point: yes of course some adults are as gullible as any 14yo, but gullibility tends to reduce somewhat when human beings come out of childhood.
It's not the oath they object to, it's Westminster claiming the right to make laws for [part of] Ireland. Therefore they abstain from Westminster, oath or not.
"A Number 10 source has told the Press Association that if the Conservatives win a general election then Brexit will likely not come until 2020"
She’s approaching a full half hour on her feet
https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/1189153270167564288?s=20
There is good reason to remove it from anyone who is not a British citizen.
"Sigh. And disenfranchise a large chunk of Northern Ireland?"
Now, now - I think he meant Great Britain & NI.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2019-2020/0010/amend/early_daily_cwh_1029.1-7.html
This amendment links a change of date for an early general election to 7 May 2020 with the holding of a referendum on 26 March 2020.
1. The Grenfell report, the criticism of the Fire Service and the resignation of the head of the Fire Service.
2. Yet another inquiry into the inquiry into Operation Midland.
3. IS taking over the camps where they were held prisoner, as a result of the Turkish fight with the Kurds, and what this means for the possibility of IS regrouping / mutating under another leader.
4. The protests in Iraq and what this might lead to.
5. The Dispatches programme on contacts between civil servants and US trade negotiators re medicine pricing.
Just saying ......
[1] Which is their right under the GFA.
As far as I am concerned, regardless of whether the amendments for 16s or EU Citz is passed, it is now fair game for a future majority government to address the integrity of our voting system by applying reasonable Voter ID checks at all future elections.
The intent is clearly there on the part of opposition parties to gerrymander so for the sake of democracy a Conservative government should move to protect peoples faith in their vote.
Or have sex?
Or drive cars and motorbikes?
Should the police be allowed to interrogate children without an adult present?
Change their name by deed poll?
Fly planes and helicopters?
https://howmanydaystill.com/its/heat-death-of-the-universe
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1335241
It appears that the UK is a good place for China right now, on two counts at least. One is Arm confirming that some of its UK-developed architectures are outside the scope of current U.S. export restrictions. The second is news over the weekend suggesting the British Prime Minister is set to allow Huawei supply to non-contentious parts of the 5G network....