Why are leavers so angry

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you want to try and point out any logical errors in my post? Are you just upset because it's a solid point you don't agree with?

I will.
Point out the obvious glaring error in your post, that is.

You appear to be saying that in "X" years time, some of the "older generation" will have died.
A natural-enough conclusion in itself.
Notwithstanding that some - though admittedly proportionally less - of the "younger generation" will also surely die you are you are missing the patently obvious:

That is, that those who are younger today will not still be young in "X" years time.

As they age one would hope that they gain life experience and knowledge.
If we look at the ten year timescale you imagine it is therefore not unreasonable to imagine that those who may have been more-inclined to vote remain when younger will have decided instead (as they age and gain insight they did not have when younger) that they now favour Brexit.


Unless of course you honestly believe that someone's opinions do not change over time?
In which case we need never have another election ever again, eh?

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

So you're trying to imply that those under 25 aren't wise enough to have a say in a vote, despite having the most at risk, and those over 65 who are essentially immune from most of the risk, should have the say? Where should your cut-off be?

I'd also argue that there's a much wider experience/wisdom gap from 14 to 21 than from 26 to 65.

At 14 I new nothing about how the world works. At 25 I had a degree, career, mortgage etc.

unlike Twain father, you seem to have learned very little since 14

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

The Leave community see conspiracy everywhere, in every delay, but surely getting it right is more important than speed?

The problem is, everything we've ever seen from the EU demonstrates that they argue. and argue. and argue. and argue. endlessly. We are reminded of this on a regular basis when Greece nearly goes bankrupt every so often. How many times does it get left to the 11th hour before yet another bailout a decision is made? And even then it's rarely a decision, just more euro-fudge so they can delay even longer.

You need to start the clock when you're dealing with an institution like the EU. 2 years is plenty but they'll make it take 200 if you let them.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I didn't say that those with a shorter life expectancy should be denied a vote, but you must be able to understand why the younger generations feel robbed that an older generation voted against them, for what will have minimal impact on the older generation* but massive impacts on the future generations.


*The older generations tend to have more wealth, and don't need to directly deal with things like getting on the property market, getting a job, getting an education. Then there's the statistical fact that by the time we've actually finished negotiating this, more "leavers" will have died of old age than "remainers". Push things back far enough using just the demographics and no cultural change at it'd take less than 10 years for the vote to shift from leave to remain.

Given that; that by the time we actually leave and the shockwaves are being felt, the majority will actually want to remain. Can you understand why a lot of younger remainers are upset?

.

The flaw in all this is the assumption that all the elderly who will die voted leave and all young people entering the voting register would vote remain. There is no evidence for this and if you look at the voting demographics you will see that as people get older, their views shift in favour of leave. There is no reason to believe that another referendum would produce a different outcome.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

I didn't say that those with a shorter life expectancy should be denied a vote, but you must be able to understand why the younger generations feel robbed that an older generation voted against them, for what will have minimal impact on the older generation* but massive impacts on the future generations.


*The older generations tend to have more wealth, and don't need to directly deal with things like getting on the property market, getting a job, getting an education. Then there's the statistical fact that by the time we've actually finished negotiating this, more "leavers" will have died of old age than "remainers". Push things back far enough using just the demographics and no cultural change at it'd take less than 10 years for the vote to shift from leave to remain.

Given that; that by the time we actually leave and the shockwaves are being felt, the majority will actually want to remain. Can you understand why a lot of younger remainers are upset?

Well there is a lot of nonsense in there, but let's just deal with the primary question -

Do you believe that the votes of some sections of society are more important than others?

Sapphire

cogito wrote: »

.

The flaw in all this is the assumption that all the elderly who will die voted leave and all young people entering the voting register would vote remain.

Indeed. I know several elderly people who voted for remain (granted, they were affluent north and west Londoners). A couple even expressed the opinion that referendums should be banned just because the result didn't turn out 'their way'! The one youth in my family who voted remain (age 30) did so because he thought he might not be able to travel to Europe if we left, but said 'but I must find out more about it' (i.e. he'd not bothered to think about any of the other serious problems connected with the EU because he was ignorant about the EU). :eek:

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

Do you believe that the votes of some sections of society are more important than others?

I think the people affected by a vote should have some weighting in their direction. Things that mostly affect youth: should get more of a say. Things that affect Women: should get more of a say. And so on.

Cornucopia

Herzlos wrote: »

I think the people affected by a vote should have some weighting in their direction. Things that mostly affect youth: should get more of a say. Things that affect Women: should get more of a say. And so on.

Things that affect billionaires...?

There is a beautiful and inclusive simplicity about one person, one vote. Since we have arrived at it relatively late in human history, let's not start mucking around with it now, and let's not start mucking around with it because some people missed the warning signs that the populace were unhappy.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

I didn't say that those with a shorter life expectancy should be denied a vote, but you must be able to understand why the younger generations feel robbed that an older generation voted against them, for what will have minimal impact on the older generation* but massive impacts on the future generations.


*The older generations tend to have more wealth, and don't need to directly deal with things like getting on the property market, getting a job, getting an education. Then there's the statistical fact that by the time we've actually finished negotiating this, more "leavers" will have died of old age than "remainers". Push things back far enough using just the demographics and no cultural change at it'd take less than 10 years for the vote to shift from leave to remain.

Given that; that by the time we actually leave and the shockwaves are being felt, the majority will actually want to remain. Can you understand why a lot of younger remainers are upset?

There are almost twice as many people of voting age under 50 than there are over, so perhaps younger people should look at themselves.

Quizzical_Squirrel

Herzlos wrote: »

I think the people affected by a vote should have some weighting in their direction. Things that mostly affect youth: should get more of a say. Things that affect Women: should get more of a say. And so on.

So the gist of your argument is that:

1) turkeys don't vote for Christmas
2) turkeys are disproportionately affected by Christmas
3) therefore turkeys should get more of a say

Happy Chanukah everyone!