Has CLAPTON swung your mind. IN or OUT

kabayiri

I'm voting Yes for UK to become the next state of the USA.

We have moved over many of our companies to the control of our transatlantic cousins, so it shouldn't be too difficult to complete the next bit.

Sadly, I find this goal to be incompatible with staying in the EU.

Thrugelmir

LHW99 wrote: »

What age is that now? 55 for those at early retirement, 60 for those who retired a little while ago, or who still have schemes where that is the NRA? 66+ for those who will get the new SP? or over 70 for those few who choose to keep working at least part-time until they feel its right to stop?

Golden era for early retirement. Higher contributions, smaller benefit, later retirement ages are going to make it progressively more difficult.

Jon_B_2

Initially, I was in. Then I was out. Then I was in again, then about 3 weeks ago I was out.

I suspect it will stay that way til Thursday.

The shame about the whole charade is that I don't want to vote for either as both options stink.

Mistermeaner

nic_c wrote: »

Has the OP really simply made up their mind because of this? Sorry, call me sceptical, but I've seen feigned conversions from undecided before, by both sides. The "Hey I was completely undecided but just found out [insert spurious point given as a honest cross-my-heart-would-I-lie-to you fact] and that's it I'm now voting IN/OUT [delete as appropriate], what about you?" is so unpersuasive.

I'm not sure why you thinking would come on here and lie?

I'm not trying to pursuade anyone of anything merely explained my view

padington

Jon_B wrote: »

Initially, I was in. Then I was out. Then I was in again, then about 3 weeks ago I was out.

I suspect it will stay that way til Thursday.

The shame about the whole charade is that I don't want to vote for either as both options stink.

What do you mean both stink? Either way we'll be a healthy and advanced country with great infrastructure, good laws, educated people, new entrprenerial culture and new generation who are much more hard working and sane than ever before. We enjoy a privileged place in the world where often just our accents are a huge advantage and our culture magnetises others like not much else on the planet. Unemployment is really low. We still enjoy a decent NHS, welfare state and still find the money to give generously overseas.

We are the home of science, football, tennis, Shakespeare , theatre, film, TV, radio, natural history, art, finance, much of the worlds best music, comedy and literature and we are even the home to time itself.

We enjoy the benefits of being the home to the worlds most famous family which includes the worlds most adored celebrities and worlds most popular city. We also enjoy exclusive rights to the worlds most exciting pieces of history and have inherited the magnificent trappings of this history from great castles to talented families from many disciplines which still lead and intrigue, maintain and entertain the world to this day.

Take away your glass half full nonsense, we've got it great.

mwpt

I don't think this thread is particularly helpful.

Spidernick

michaels wrote: »

1st rule...

I think I know this one: is it something about not mentioning Fight Club?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

if one was mad enough to follow the logic surely one would base voting eligibility on life expectancy rather than simply age.
so anyone suffering from cancer or life shorting disability or risky occupation or overweight or a heavy smoker etc should be banned

madness of course, but then a few extremist in the remain camp are pretty unpleasant people.

That's not following the logic - just making it more complicated.

Age seems a reasonable enough proxy for life expectancy. Anyone, say, 70 or over is very likely to be high priority for being protected whatever the outcome.

Perhaps, if that's unpalatable, younger people should get a higher vote weighting or maybe 16 year old should've got a say - they might well be in their sixties next time the question's asked.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

That's not following the logic - just making it more complicated.

Age seems a reasonable enough proxy for life expectancy. Anyone, say, 70 or over is very likely to be high priority for being protected whatever the outcome.

Perhaps, if that's unpalatable, younger people should get a higher vote weighting or maybe 16 year old should've got a say - they might well be in their sixties next time the question's asked.

I wouldn't vote the same way at 16, 18 or 21 as the way I do now in my early 30's.

In my own opinion, during those early years you don't have a proper understanding, you cling to dreamy ideals or uninformed opinions. You're more likely to believe in massive conspiracy theory, or you're more interested in what clothes Chloe Kardashian is wearing and why, along with being torn between the latest iPhone or the latest Samsung. You watch Celebrity Love Island and you turn off Question Time. You get all of your information through twitter and facebook aligned with who and what you follow. You leave voting registration until after you've finished your takeaway at 10:30pm, or perhaps you were too busy watching the latest Game of Thrones episode and feel disenfranchised when you're unable to register. You don't prioritise things like voting.

We have enough apathetic uninformed voters as it is, why allow more of them to shape the nation before they know who they truly are as individuals. It's a risky game, why stop at 16?

Mistermeaner

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I wouldn't vote the same way at 16, 18 or 21 as the way I do now in my early 30s

Being as there is only 3 choices (leave, remain, abstain) i call male cows hit.