
Brexit was a harsh political awakening for young people - alexbilbie
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-political-awakening-young-people/
======
rayiner
It's interesting to note that the usual excuses that are given for low turnout
among young people--feeling like their vote won't make a difference--were not
present here. This was a direct referendum: what should we do? No politician
who will court the youth vote then do something else. Yet, turnout was still
low. Which begs the question: why should anyone care what young people think
when they can't be bothered to vote, even when there is literally nothing
standing between their vote and the result they want?

~~~
harryh
Hispanics turn out to vote at lower rates than whites. Why should anyone care
what they think?

The poor turn out to vote at lower rates than the rich. Why should anyone care
what they think?

Those without college degrees turn out to vote at lower rates than those with
college degrees. Why should anyone care what they think?

I get the point that you're trying to make and you're not entirely wrong. But
I think you're ignoring structural factors that lead to certain group's voices
being under heard in the body politic. Those groups should be responsible for
reforming themselves sure. But those outside the groups are a little bit
responsible too.

~~~
aaron695
I think you missed the point.

The young often say they don't vote cause there is no one to vote for.

The was a direct vote on a issue, they couldn't be betrayed, and they still
didn't vote.

So perhaps they are just making excuses.

~~~
harryh
I didn't miss the point. I agree that "there is no one to vote for" is an
excuse. But what is the real reason they don't vote? I can think of several
hypotheses:

    
    
      - They haven't yet developed the habit of voting
      - They are busier booting up their lives than more established adults
      - They move around more and are not yet embedded in their community
    

None of these are reasons to think that their preferences should matter less.

What's your hypothesis for why the young vote in fewer numbers?

~~~
aaron695
There lives have just 'been' so far. It's a foreign concept to interact out
side of their world.

This is also selfish and ignorant but that's young mammals.

------
hkmurakami
This divide beaten the haves and have nots, between the young and the old, and
a sense that the old will determine the fates of the young through polls,
conjures up images of Japan's concerted voting demographics where the elderly
dominate and dictate elections and the young feel increasingly
disenfranchised.

~~~
x0x0
Or the US, where our response to the losers of globalization is, "That sucks
(for you.)"

Mix with some racism / xenophobia, and out pops Donald Trump. Who is scary,
but eventually we'll get our own Nigel Farage: someone who manages to say the
quiet parts quietly...

~~~
WalterSear
We've had that for years. Americans aren't subtle - they needed someone to
come out and 'say what is on his mind' for them.

------
jrapdx3
So the young are grousing that the vote didn't turn out the way some of them
preferred. As noted, youth turnout was low, meaning many in that age bracket
didn't care or were willing to let the "older" citizens to decide for them.

In any case, the effects of the vote will be determined over time, presumably
the lengthy negotiation will be an opportunity for voters to have their say,
so the youthful non-participants could yet participate.

The linear ramp of age-vs.-participation implies the inevitability that as the
young cohort is seasoned by real-world experience, they'll replicate the
patterns evident among older voters in this election. The more things change,
the more they stay the same.

------
nostrademons
Beware the statistics in this post. They don't show that turnout was low among
young people, they show that turnout was _relatively low in areas that had a
lot of young people, except for Oxford and Cambridge_. Ditto all the other
graphs showing correlations between age, income, education, etc. There are a
lot of potential confounding factors that can account for that, although it's
the best you can do statistically since voting is anonymous.

------
TruthAndDare
> the freedom of movement that the EU offered them

If this is desirable, why can't it be had through agreements between pairs of
countries without there having to be a European union that you hand over many
other powers to?

The same goes for other things related to barriers between countries.

~~~
jdavis703
Because the EU requires that negotiations be done with all member states as a
whole. So if you let people in from Spain, you also have to let them in from
say Romania. That's why the EU was threatening to tighten tourist/bussines
trip visas for U.S. and Canandian nationals: [http://www.dw.com/en/european-
union-to-consider-reimposition...](http://www.dw.com/en/european-union-to-
consider-reimposition-of-visas-against-the-us-and-canada-next-week/a-19174992)

~~~
TruthAndDare
I don't see that this answers my question. Why can't, say, Great Britain make
such an agreement with, say, Spain, and then make the same agreement (or
choose not to) with Romania?

Btw, non-EU countries in Europe are already in on some of the agreements that
exist between EU countries, without having to agree to everything else the EU
does. Wouldn't that be a working kind of collaboration?

~~~
Gibbon1
Probably because the government of Spain and Romania have ceded that power to
the European Commission, which is appointed by the Council of the European
Union not elected.

~~~
TruthAndDare
I guess what I'm asking is why we need the EU in the first place when it comes
to issues like this one when we could make that kind of agreements anyway,
without having to cede all power.

~~~
gutnor
You don't need to, but the EU is that way.

We don't even know what is going to happen in the real world, that's difficult
to make projection in a hypothetical world were the EU was built differently.

For example, would the UK have voted out in the first place in such a world ?
Would Turkey be a member of the EU ?

Edit: Let's add a bit more info. The goal of the EU was to become the USA of
Europe. Can each State of the USA determine its own immigration rule directly
with foreign nations ?

------
piotrjurkiewicz
> the freedom of movement that the EU offered them

There are many countries which are not in the EU, but one can still freely
move between them (they signed the Schengen treaty).

~~~
captncrap
Freedom of movement exists independently of Schengen. Freedom of movement
gives you the right to move freely between the territories of the states, but
does not preclude border control. There is/was freedom of movement between the
UK and the rest of the EU, even if the UK performed border checks. Freedom of
movement meant that if you prove that you are an EU citizen, they can not
prevent you from entering.

The pillar that supports this and other freedoms is the political machinery in
Brussels ("the EU"), and without it it all comes tumbling down. European
states are not to be trusted to act in the interest of all Europeans when left
on their own. They have proven the opposite throughout history, and will do so
again. Make no mistake, these rights and freedoms will disappear without
political union.

~~~
piotrjurkiewicz
> if you prove that you are an EU citizen, they can not prevent you from
> entering

Well, since a few years they cannot (don't want to?) prevent from entering
even those ones who are _not_ EU citizens. Moreover, one can enter the EU even
without a passport or any other identification document.

> The pillar that supports this and other freedoms is the political machinery
> in Brussels ("the EU"), and without it it all comes tumbling down.

I agree -- this situation is (mostly) a result of the political machinery in
Brussels.

