Jeremy Paxman says 'no votes for pensioners'

If we had to vote on a choice- no votes for over 80s or votes for 16/17 year olds with regard to leave or remain in EU - I'd pick our young people- it is their future more than it is ours.

AmMaz ''Democracy is changing...' ? - care to explain?

'Democracy is for everyone...' - has it not been then? I thought that was the point - that it is for everyone! And certainly the point Day6 made so eloquently on 14 Feb.'

The interpretation of 'Democracy' is very very different depending on location/country. So, the recent referendum has certainly meant a huge change for the UK - which has never ever been a direct Democracy, but a Parliamentary one- and where Referendums have always been, and are, by our own Laws (and not the EUs) been advisory. That is very clear- also clear that Cameron had NO right whatsoever to make a promise it would be implemented- with a tiny majority and based on lie after lie.

I live in a Direct Democracy where Referendums are the norm- the GVT has to produce advice for voters which are heavily scrutinised by experts (yes ... experts- would you believe it !)- which are distributed by the GVT before the vote to all households- representing all pros and cons and consequences.

Democracy by Referendum is just not cricket - or British.

Do you have a link to them, Petra? It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Eloethan
You obviously missed a 'few' posts after the referendum

Lemon
But think how angry they can get with their ( the academics) opinions

Did anyone actually say that it was only less educated people who voted for Brexit?

That would spoil the popular opinion of Remainers though Petra

"Who voted for Brexit"

A coalition of academics went public today with a mission to prove it was not only less educated people who or Brexit
It's called Briefings for Brexit.
I doubt that you will find a hairy knuckle dragging xenophobic little englander amongst them

MaizieD To leave the EU

I am not a 'proponent' of anything AmMaz. I just explained what I do about a poster you chose to applaud - I don't. It is not because I don't agree with them but I find them rude and aggressive - rather as you, it seems to me, are deliberately being towards me. In real life I can walk away. That is what I chose to do on here. I am not suggesting anyone else does it.

You are misrepresenting me again. Please do not give false and misleading accounts of what I said. I did not say "yes" to anything. It might be worth rereading as you seem to have made up your own reply.

AmMaz, why do you feel the need to just attack one person rather than consider the OP?

GracesGranMK2 ...my, how you dish yourself.

Democracy has changed in who has the vote thanks to Suffragettes, yes. So now we have one person one vote regardless of gender, wealth or age (which is what the OP was about) and also whether you or I agree with how that vote is cast. Are you working to change that I wonder?

However, you are indeed a strong proponent for ignoring others you say - when you dont like/agree what they say? And this seems to me to be the essence of your political stance. And when those views do not go away...well...see your above post?

All the strategies I listed previously which you said 'yes' to (and pointed out I'd missed one) add up to passive aggressive manoeuvring and presumably continuing to push through for the result you want. And ignore the democratically arrived at outcome.

So you admit it then GracesGranMK2! I didn't just miss one, I missed one other, if not the main one: projection.

You seems to have turned into a pseudo American lawyer AM. I was not 'admitting' to anything. I was simply saying that your mind reading skills when it comes to others motives - I don't - had missed what I do, which is ignore Day6's posts.

I also try to ignore those who come on here only to wind things up. You seem to think that having a go at other posters is worthwhile argument and, having added nothing to that discussion are now trying to re-write others posts. You have, deliberately it seems, misquoted me. I did not say "Democracy is changing...' I said "Democracy is moving and changing in the ideas we agree on and always has been." Misquoting for your own ends is lying by another name. Pleased do not do it with my posts. Democracy is moving and changing in the ideas we agree on and always has been - you only have to think that 100 years ago only women over 30 who owned property or whose husbands owned property could vote. That was our democracy then; it is not our democracy now.

I have a feeling - I am not sure as you don't seem to have been posting all that often - that you are another to ignore. I certainly will if you continue to shout at everyone and misquote for your own ends.

'Democracy is changing...' ? - care to explain?

'Democracy is for everyone...' - has it not been then? I thought that was the point - that it is for everyone! And certainly the point Day6 made so eloquently on 14 Feb.

So you admit it then GracesGranMK2! I didn't just miss one, I missed one other, if not the main one: projection.

They'll need pitchforks either way to help the farmers if we leave.

...if anything their resolve is even stronger.

Even stronger to do what, Wally? Battle through the economic depression, isolation and the derision and scorn of most of the international community, like the plucky Little Englanders they are?

Or are they prepared to take to the streets armed with pitchforks if we decide not to leave the EU after all?

And, as Murdoch said, he can influence our government but he can't influence the EU....

Sadly some of the very wealthy few, such as foreign newspaper proprietors, billionaire bankers and priviledged politicians who appear to live in a different world are highly relevant in this debate as they are able to influence millions of ordinary voters.

In the great scheme of things Paxman is irrelevant he lives in a different world to the vast majority of us.

No leaver I know has changed their mind if anything their resolve is even stronger.

Had there been a vote on the referendum in the H of C then the result would almost certainly been overturned. However, as D.C. with the approval of the House, said quite clearly that the vote would be upheld regardless, then obviously there couldn't be a commons vote and we are where we are.

No problem, Fennel. Great minds think alike.

Yes I quoted Varian but didn't mention whose quote it was.
Sorry Varian.