I'm not sure I'm as optimistic as Grayling on the timescale. I think it'll be a generation at least. My son, currently barely able to stand unassisted, will vote in that referendum. But he is...
I'm not sure I'm as optimistic as Grayling on the timescale. I think it'll be a generation at least. My son, currently barely able to stand unassisted, will vote in that referendum. But he is right. We ultimtately be back in the EU, and we'll be back as the equals we always should have been - no special treatment, no massive fees rebate, nothing. Equal seats at the table.
I've tried explaining to brexiteers that the best outcome they can hope for, long term, is very likely to be the situation that we currently have as an unfairly overpowered and undercontributing EU member state, but the few that I know are completely immune to reason. The EU is bad, for some reason that is both incredibly obvious and that they're incapable of expressing, and the only way Britain can ever become great again is by leaving it.
I'm really interested in this last paragraph, since it echoes some thoughts I've had and heard about the American three-branch model of governance: I wonder what governmental model is currently...
I'm really interested in this last paragraph, since it echoes some thoughts I've had and heard about the American three-branch model of governance:
The underlying weakness of the “Westminster Model” of parliamentary democracy is a danger to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, India, and nearly 50 other ex-British Empire countries around the world. The UK is the first to fall apart because it hasn’t papered over the cracks with some constitutional adjustments, as in Australia and elsewhere.
I wonder what governmental model is currently the most-stable, as far as we can tell.
That paragraph intrigued me, because it's just sitting there, without support or explanation. It's a major critique of a significant model of government, but it's just an assertion rather than an...
That paragraph intrigued me, because it's just sitting there, without support or explanation. It's a major critique of a significant model of government, but it's just an assertion rather than an argument. And it has nothing to do with his arguments about Brexit. It's almost like it's just a teaser for his book, mentioned after the opinion piece.
But I would be interested to read Professor Grayling's book about the Westminster model of government. I have a few of his books already, and I would like to see his take on something else I'm interested in: our government.
If they didn't bother voting, should their opinion still count? 18 is the voting age for UK general elections, so why should it be lower on a referendum to leave the EU? Why should non-UK citizens...
Despite all the noise and dust, there is no majority for Brexit in the UK. In the referendum the Brexit vote was 37 per cent of the total electorate – 26 per cent of the population – which, by the way the figures for votes cast on the day fell out, gave a 51.89 per cent “win” for Brexit.
If they didn't bother voting, should their opinion still count?
Almost 5 million people were excluded from the franchise. This included 16 and 17-year-olds, expatriate British citizens who had lived abroad for more than a certain number of years, and EU citizens resident in the UK and paying their taxes there.
18 is the voting age for UK general elections, so why should it be lower on a referendum to leave the EU? Why should non-UK citizens be allowed to vote for the future of the UK?
Fair question - it's the reason that quorum rules exist in general, especially for high-stakes changes, so there are many situations where abstaining becomes a de-facto vote for the status quo....
If they didn't bother voting, should their opinion still count?
Fair question - it's the reason that quorum rules exist in general, especially for high-stakes changes, so there are many situations where abstaining becomes a de-facto vote for the status quo. Obviously that wasn't the case here, but it's far from unprecedented.
18 is the voting age for UK general elections, so why should it be lower on a referendum to leave the EU?
It shouldn't, but those are the people who would now be able to take part in a confirmatory referendum on the actual terms of the departure because they've turned 18 in the interim period.
Why should non-UK citizens be allowed to vote for the future of the UK?
Because they're UK residents, in many cases have been for years, and likely never saw a reason to become a UK citizen specifically because of the freedoms afforded by EU immigration rules. They would literally have been voting on their own future.
I'm not sure I'm as optimistic as Grayling on the timescale. I think it'll be a generation at least. My son, currently barely able to stand unassisted, will vote in that referendum. But he is right. We ultimtately be back in the EU, and we'll be back as the equals we always should have been - no special treatment, no massive fees rebate, nothing. Equal seats at the table.
I've tried explaining to brexiteers that the best outcome they can hope for, long term, is very likely to be the situation that we currently have as an unfairly overpowered and undercontributing EU member state, but the few that I know are completely immune to reason. The EU is bad, for some reason that is both incredibly obvious and that they're incapable of expressing, and the only way Britain can ever become great again is by leaving it.
Sigh.
I'm really interested in this last paragraph, since it echoes some thoughts I've had and heard about the American three-branch model of governance:
I wonder what governmental model is currently the most-stable, as far as we can tell.
That paragraph intrigued me, because it's just sitting there, without support or explanation. It's a major critique of a significant model of government, but it's just an assertion rather than an argument. And it has nothing to do with his arguments about Brexit. It's almost like it's just a teaser for his book, mentioned after the opinion piece.
But I would be interested to read Professor Grayling's book about the Westminster model of government. I have a few of his books already, and I would like to see his take on something else I'm interested in: our government.
Oh, I didn't see the book bit. Yes, I think you're right -- it seems like mostly marketing. But marketing for something interesting!
If they didn't bother voting, should their opinion still count?
18 is the voting age for UK general elections, so why should it be lower on a referendum to leave the EU? Why should non-UK citizens be allowed to vote for the future of the UK?
Fair question - it's the reason that quorum rules exist in general, especially for high-stakes changes, so there are many situations where abstaining becomes a de-facto vote for the status quo. Obviously that wasn't the case here, but it's far from unprecedented.
It shouldn't, but those are the people who would now be able to take part in a confirmatory referendum on the actual terms of the departure because they've turned 18 in the interim period.
Because they're UK residents, in many cases have been for years, and likely never saw a reason to become a UK citizen specifically because of the freedoms afforded by EU immigration rules. They would literally have been voting on their own future.