Post by pensive hamsterPost by Norman WellsPost by pensive hamsterPost by Norman WellsUnless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
The bigger the decision, the greater the complexity, and the greater the
consequences, the longer it obviously has to be and should be between
decisions on the same matter.
Obviously?? Obviously you are completely wrong. The greater the
complexity, and the greater the consequences, the greater the
importance of continually monitoring and reviewing the situation.
So, do you monitor your marriage on a day-to-day basis? Or your
children? Or your move to New Zealand? Should we have a general
election every fortnight, or what?
Post by pensive hamsterYou wouldn't set a course to sea in a fully laden supertanker, for
example, without maintaining a constant watch for dangers.
But you can't just turn it around. That's the thing they always say
about supertankers.
Post by pensive hamsterPost by Norman WellsMarry in haste, repent at leisure as they say.
Well, if you will marry in haste. Shotgun wedding, was it?
Replace that, if you like, with having children. It's a big decision.
Once in a generation. One that will affect you, your family and your
children for decades to come. Biology will implement what you decide.
You can't change your mind after a year or two. You have to go with it.
Post by pensive hamsterPost by Norman WellsWhich shop to go to can be decided daily. Where to go for a meal out,
maybe once a week. Where to go on holiday, a couple of times a year.
Electing a government, once every 5 years. Whether to join or exit the
EU, not more than once in a generation.
You have set the ship of state full steam ahead on course into an
area of unpredictable currents and hidden shoals, and you propose
popping back in 30 or 40 years time to check on progress?
Yes. It takes an enormous amount of effort to set sail and to stop,
like having children.
Post by pensive hamsterPost by Norman WellsWhy is that unreasonable?
Because it is completely barmy.
Post by Norman WellsAnyway, you seem to be favouring allowing new voters a say in what's
already been decided as soon as they reach whatever age it is you think
appropriate. What age is that, how would it be done, and how often
should a new cohort be brought in?
"And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a
generation. It's what was promised."
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'. They're the start of a generation that
won't be complete until, er, a generation's time. They're like those
who were born in 1958 or 1959, who were just too young to vote in the EU
referendum in 1975, and had to wait until 2016 before they were able to
vote on the matter.
There will always be a cut-off point.
Post by pensive hamsterhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
'Student leaders ... argue in the letter to MPs that there are large
numbers of young people – estimated at 1.4 million – who were too
young to vote in the June 2016 EU referendum but who are now
eligible to do so, and that this group deserves a say.'
If voting in or out is simply an age-related thing, there will also be
1.4 million who voted Remain in the referendum but who are now a little
older and are sensible enough to vote Leave.