Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Except when I looked into it the House of Lords rejected the idea on account it finances of all things! Apparently lowering the age threshold would cost 6 million and this was high enough for the House of Lords to overturn the idea.

6 Million is the reason they put forward that means well-informed (because lets be honest, 16-17's who aren't well informed or don't care enough won't sign up for a voting registration) people won't get a vote in what might be the most important vote of my life time. Especially when you consider the precedent set by Scottland in lowering their threshold during the Independence vote because they recognised the importance of the vote in how it will affect my generation.

Sure, I can campaign but my realm of influence is slim. I could show my perspective to a group of my peers and hope to get a discussion going, but there is no guarantee an adult would pay me any heed, because why should they? I don't get to vote.

I agree with you in that many buracratic or tax based decisions may go over my head unless I put the effort into researching them because they don't affect me much, but this decision may have a profound effect on my generation and as such we should get the right to register as a voter, if only for this referendum.

 Ketara wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
As a 17-year-old I'm appalled I will not get a say in this, possibly the most important decision my country will make for a very long time and one that will affect me indefinitely. If anything, It's my generation this will hit the hardest as it will be us who might have to move into the working world or University during the possible transition period. The 2014 Scottish Independence referendum lowered their voting age to 16 because they believed these young adults should get a say in the choice that will entirely shape the future of their country, and now that an arguably much bigger decision is on the horizon we're being excluded?

The age should be lowered to 16+ for this referendum, if not indefinitely. In this modern technological age it's could be argued that many Young adults are more up to date with current affairs than many adults due to growing up in a culturally expanding and information driven society.

I don't know. As an adult, I'm entirely comfortable with under 18's not having the vote. I'm not so far removed from it that I don't remember the fact that most 16 & 17 year olds I knew had the political awareness of a chipmunk (and that's including the ones taking Politics at A level). Not that the 18 and 19 year olds were much better, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you're going to lower it, why 17 and not 16? Why 16 and not 15?

I acknowledge if you're interested, it must feel quite patronising and unnecessarily restrictive, but then again, not being able to buy alcohol also feels that way at 17. You're more or less at the point where your cognitive skills are reaching/have reached their full potential, so it all seems inherently unfair. Unfortunately, whilst the reasoning skills tend to be peaking, in terms of empirical experience and maturity, someone under 18 is nowhere near a full baked adult. Certain parts of the brain don't even finish developing until you hit 21.

I don't say this to condescend, more to justify my belief that 18 years is as good an age as any to set the vote at, alongside drinking and various other activities.

Not having a go at you in particular, Ketara, but I've heard a lot of people say similar things about under 18s voting, and my response is always the same:

No taxation without representation. Westminster can't have it both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Except when I looked into it the House of Lords rejected the idea on account it finances of all things! Apparently lowering the age threshold would cost 6 million and this was high enough for the House of Lords to overturn the idea.

6 Million is the reason they put forward that means well-informed (because lets be honest, 16-17's who aren't well informed or don't care enough won't sign up for a voting registration) people won't get a vote in what might be the most important vote of my life time. Especially when you consider the precedent set by Scottland in lowering their threshold during the Independence vote because they recognised the importance of the vote in how it will affect my generation.

Sure, I can campaign but my realm of influence is slim. I could show my perspective to a group of my peers and hope to get a discussion going, but there is no guarantee an adult would pay me any heed, because why should they? I don't get to vote.

I agree with you in that many buracratic or tax based decisions may go over my head unless I put the effort into researching them because they don't affect me much, but this decision may have a profound effect on my generation and as such we should get the right to register as a voter, if only for this referendum.

I doubt if it's any consolation, but the SNP pushed hard for under 18s to get the vote for the EU referendum, but the Tories shot the idea down in flames.

I believe it's the right thing to let 16-17 year old vote, because it's their future at stake here.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Not having a go at you in particular, Ketara, but I've heard a lot of people say similar things about under 18s voting, and my response is always the same:

No taxation without representation. Westminster can't have it both ways.
.

That sounds awfully American. The people on this forum have a having a bad influence on you, old bean. Drink some tea, quickly!

As things stand, the only time an under 18 is taxed is if they're employed. And that's right and fair, because the military, NHS, and education they're enjoying the benefit of aren't just paying for themselves. If one is particularly attached to the 'no taxation' aspect however, there is one logical corollary of thought, namely the removal of the under 18's to work. Certainly it would be more feasible than extending the vote down by two years because a miniscule proportion of under 18's happen to have jobs.

Not to mention that I was employed from 14 and up, and I'm pretty sure the voting age shouldn't be that low!

I doubt if it's any consolation, but the SNP pushed hard for under 18s to get the vote for the EU referendum, but the Tories shot the idea down in flames.

I have a sneaky feeling that the SNP were pushing for that because they figured that kids with little political experience would be the easiest to inspire and feed a simple narrative around 'freedom!', without any awkward questions. Primarily because being teenagers, they're not really aware of any other political philosophies, much history, basic knowledge of economics, or any other such inconvenient knowledge that might make them question it. They're also far less cynical.

Alexisawesome wrote:I agree with you in that many buracratic or tax based decisions may go over my head unless I put the effort into researching them because they don't affect me much, but this decision may have a profound effect on my generation and as such we should get the right to register as a voter, if only for this referendum.

Frankly, I have nothing but the utmost respect for your raw intellectual capabilities, everyone needs to do basic research before they grasp something. But as I said, why 17 and not 16? Why 16 and not 15? Every vote of every every kind, from the general elections on down affect the future of the country, and the future that today's children will have to live through. I'm really not convinced that's an argument to let the 8 year olds vote though, y'know? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it happens to be drawn at 18. Which totally sucks for you, I understand that. But them's the breaks.

Your arguments about brain function imply we should have a "maximum" age for voting too, to me

 Da Boss wrote:
Your arguments about brain function imply we should have a "maximum" age for voting too, to me

Not really. We logically have to take mental development into account when granting the vote, unless you fancy giving a six year old the vote?

Having said that, as people are living longer, the idea of placing upper age limits on certain things is not a new one, and is fast becoming relevant, especially with regards to things like driving licenses.

Your point about an 8 year old voting seems like a Straw Man fallancy, taking my point to an illogical extreme. I understand your logic about not knowing where to draw the line but at least to me the education system leaves a clear drawn distinction which the Government could follow suit. Post 16 education is under most circumstances either in Higher Education (AS/A levels), College Courses or Apprenterships (World of work). This is why I would draw the line at post 16 because at which point they are considered to of completed compulsory education and can move onto to the world of work to a certain degree. I would argue this overlap is enough to justify a post 16 vote.

Them's the breaks just seems so unnecessarily restrictive and if people were satisfied with this answer then scientific and social developments would've been stunted a long time ago.

I thank you for the complements about my own comprehensions but this is not just my rant against the 'Man'. An entire age demographic of well informed Young adults within Higher Education (these are the communities I interact with, I cannot comment on others) have no say. I'm not saying we should give out the vote to anyone who asks for it. I'm proposing that People in post-16 education should have the option to register for a vote. That way only people who are truly motivated or passionate (thereby, we are to assume well-informed) will be bothered to register and have their say. This alleviates the financial issue (not as many people sign up) as well as your own fears of ill-informed people skewing the vote.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Your point about an 8 year old voting seems like a Straw Man fallancy, taking my point to an illogical extreme. I understand your logic about not knowing where to draw the line but at least to me the education system leaves a clear drawn distinction which the Government could follow suit. Post 16 education is under most circumstances either in Higher Education (AS/A levels), College Courses or Apprenterships (World of work). This is why I would draw the line at post 16 because at which point they are considered to of completed compulsory education and can move onto to the world of work to a certain degree. I would argue this overlap is enough to justify a post 16 vote.

I'd agree that it certainly warrants consideration. Sex and smoking are legal at sixteen after all. Driving Licenses are seventeen. Drinking and strip clubs are eighteen. So where should voting fall in that wide range of years? It's a good question, and certainly one worthy of discussion. I'm content with things as they are, but that doesn't mean they /should stay that way. So tell you what, Alex. Start another topic here in OT about it, and we'll have a good old fashioned banter back and forth on it..

I might not chip in until tomorrow though, I'm about to hit the hay. Work tomorrow morning, etc.

Unfortunately for those ineligible to vote, it's too late to do anything about that now. However, if you are able to throw your energy into campaigning, and education, you can still make a significant impact.

For those of us who are eligible to vote, it would be nice to access some clear, partisan free information on which to base this very serious decision.

Facts look to be thin on the ground.

Facts are the first thing up against the wall when it comes to political discussions unfortunately.

As previously mentioned, now is an excellent time to sell your vision of the future, in or out; however both sides are dwelling on fearmongering and really petty issues...

In the same vein, look at the "changes" that DC got from the EU; they are paltry in terms of both money and our interaction with the EU, but they are the things the tabloids shout loudest about despite having minimal impact on the UK...

In the UL you cannot buy ciggies until you're 18, since 2007.

Somewhat oddly however it is legal to consume/use them at 16.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeah, you might be a good and upstanding politically minded 17 year old, but how many of your peers are of the same cloth? Many of the 16-17 year olds can't be trusted to maintain the same decision for more than a few weeks. Me included.

IMHO during the Independence referrendum, the 16-17 year olds seemed a lot more politically clued up on the subject than the 30-year olds. Possibly because they covered it in school. It's pure politics though; the SNP wanted them to vote because they were more likely to say yes, the Tories wanting them to not vote because they were more likely to say yes.

Ditto here; though I'm not sure what way they lean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

As things stand, the only time an under 18 is taxed is if they're employed.

Or if they ever buy anything that qualifies for VAT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
In the UL you cannot buy ciggies until you're 18, since 2007.

Somewhat oddly however it is legal to consume/use them at 16.

It was (I thought) to grandfather out the 16-17 year olds who could smoke legally, though I thought it was a rolling limit.

I don't think we ought to have the idea of people needing to buy their votes by paying taxes.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Facts are the first thing up against the wall when it comes to political discussions unfortunately.

As previously mentioned, now is an excellent time to sell your vision of the future, in or out; however both sides are dwelling on fearmongering and really petty issues...

In the same vein, look at the "changes" that DC got from the EU; they are paltry in terms of both money and our interaction with the EU, but they are the things the tabloids shout loudest about despite having minimal impact on the UK...

And even those small concessions that Cameron won, the EU Parliament is threatening to block.

We're going to have this referendum, and in the even of a Stay vote, the EU is going to turn around and reverse the agreements it made with the British government or amend and water them down into meaninglessness. We're also going to see a lot more power grab legislation after the referendum that will have been pushed back to not influence the vote because the EU...the EU never changes...


This entire referendum is a sham. The negotiations were a sham.

Well the BBC posted a report with Cameron saying that if we vote 'No' then it means no. There wont be a renegotiation followed by better terms and then a second referendum.

OTOH if we vote yes, and the EU goes on to reverse these concessions, there is nothing to stop us from leaving the EU anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
OTOH if we vote yes, and the EU goes on to reverse these concessions, there is nothing to stop us from leaving the EU anyway.

Besides our pro-EU Prime Minister?

He won't be there forever.

Bad news for me: former Conservative leader Michael Howard is backing BREXIT.

I'm on the same side as Michael Howard

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He won't be there forever.

He has a fixed term Parliament with another 4 years till he can be removed at the ballot box, barring a Tory Party coup. By that point, the political momentum for independence will have probably petered out and the political agenda will have moved on to other matters, much like the Scottish referendum. And the chances of getting an established party leader (by that I mean party's large enough to form a government) in favour of a Brexit is remote. Cameron's successor will pro-EU too.

Its now or never.

Cameron won't last long if the EU rolls back his hard won compromises.

Which they will do, because the countries that it will be effecting will tell him to feth off and then veto the situation. It was a gentlemans agreement at best.

Then goodbye Cameron, hello Brexit!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35667858

Damn it Germany. This is why people don't trust other countries in the EU when rules are bent and then mistakes made. Merkel circumvents the correct procedure for asylum rules, let's a million flood in and quickly loses 130,000 of them!

In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.

So they don't have prisons?

Illegal immigrants are not just undesirables, they're criminals by definition.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.

So they don't have prisons?

They have memories.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.

So they don't have prisons?

Illegal immigrants are not just undesirables, they're criminals by definition.

Only if you insist they are illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers are not. But it is rather like the terrorist/freedom fighters argument.

They aren't illegal immigrants. Even if they were, the Germans don't have room to lock up 1,100,000 people in case 130,000 of them might go off piste in some way.

To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.

Too xenophobic for that, though. Bombing Syria (creating more refugees) was the better option.

 Da Boss wrote:
To flip it on it's head, rather than criticizing Germany for doing it's best to help in the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe's living memory, the UK could have shown some leadership and taken in a substantial chunk of the numbers and relieved the pressure somewhat.

You are completely deluded if you think that taking in refugees stems the tide. It only encourages more.
Germany has a million refugees on its borders BECAUSE Merkel made comments last year about taking in some thousands.
This was why the UK government was very sure that those migrants who landed in the SBA Cyprus would not get to the UK, and never will by that route. Because if any were taken in the people smugglers will be depositing them off the coast in vast numbers.

 Da Boss wrote:

Too xenophobic for that, though. Bombing Syria (creating more refugees) was the better option.

Stabilising Syria instead is hardly xenophobic.

Stop making insinuations that not wanting to be flooded by immigrants is somehow hate fuelled or racist.
Its a logical conclusion based on the facts. The EU and UK in particular is full, we cant cope with more, and a large proportion of those we let in have no intention of integrating and see our society and population as something to exploit. Unless you somehow think rape culture is part of our heritage.