starmer has an idea. LOL

We are still members of this:
www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter

We've got far better workers rights than most of the EU have.

The EU needs to create a level playing field of harmonised taxes and a bloc wide minimum wage based on the cost of living in the most expensive part, IF it wants to stop the race to the bottom, of a big manufacturer ditching its home for over a century, to embrace a pool of cheaper labour abroad, because the EU makes it easy.

I am a centrist. I agree that capitalism is absolutely needed.
But Brexit has not been economically disastrous for us, it has saved us.

Before we voted leave, manufacturers were leaving us in droves.
Our exports to the EU were in terminal decline with a burgeoning trade deficit growing and manufacturers ditching us at every opportunity.
Even HP Sauce is no longer made here.
HP Sauce, it's got the Houses of Parliament on the label, and it's made abroad.

Car manufacturer after car manufacturer ditched us.

You bang on about workers rights, what rights have redundant workers got when they've been put out of work because of way that the EU is set up and their jobs have gone to Eastern Europe?

The EU DOES NOT WORK.

If it had been reformed, I would have voted to stay, but they were given the opportunity to reform and completely fucking blew it.

Btw, in 2016 we were selling £235 bn to the EU a year.
Now we're selling £340bn a year to the EU.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
That's an above inflation rise, so how the hell do you figure that our departure has been disastrous? It really has not.

The argument, no taxation without a vote doesn't really hold water. When a 9 year old goes to a shop to buy sweets or crisps, they pay tax.
Are we going to give them the vote.
Also, is it right that a 16 year old has to have mummy present at a police interview, but can vote without mummy present?
And a 16 year old can no longer marry.
This idea will seriously screw up the "Age of majority" in the UK and the whole issue of who is an adult would need to be reviewed.

I think this is the key point - there are a range of issues where 16 year olds are not considered adult enough to act on their own free will. These restrictions have been brought by the government of the day.

Now the argument seems to be that although they are not considered old enough (sensible enough?) to use a sunbed, buy a knife, talk to the police etc etc they are perfectly old enough and sensible enough to decide on the government that implements these restrictions.

A 16 and 17 year old is old enough to think rationally and observe the world around them and see things they believe to be wrong and believe to be right. And they can do many things that someone below 16 cannot do. That includes living away from home, working and paying taxes on their earnings, riding a moped and 17 driving a car. They can legally have sex and make babies regardless of whether they are married or not. It seems reasonable enough to include putting a cross in a box as another of the things they can do. That age group makes up a small part of the potential electorate so I fail to see what is so scary about it, nor why casting one vote alongside millions of others should be regarded as such a huge responsibility. The rest of us have not done so well when it comes to voting for sensible people. Just look at some of the idiots we elect.

Firstly I think top positions in our secret services and so on should be reserved for British citizens. Anyone who is not a citizen but living here who wants to rise to the top ought to be already on enough to be able to pay for citizenship. That is a very different matter from paying to vote. And do you not recognise the potential for conflict of interest when foreign nationals rise to positions of power where they will have access to sensitive information? We have had enough problems with home grown British spies let alone giving foreign nationals the opportunity. After all, potential foreign spies can do little of any effect by casting a vote, but they could do a lot more damage by being in charge of MI5.

And what I mean by British based media are media organs and outlets operating largely in the UK. British newspapers, TV like ITV. radio stations like LBC and so on whose customer base is largely in the UK. I don't care whether or not the owners live elsewhere. It is where their media operate that is what matters to me. And the Caymen Islands are a notorious tax haven. Nevertheless if the owners of the Guardian who are based there are British I would have no problem with it. If this causes difficulties for anyone I don't really care. The right to control opinion formers in this country should come with the rights of citizenship in my view.

Although you took your time getting around to it because it is very late in the day for me, your original question was clearly designed to try and demonstrate that without linking it to the right to vote, there was little point in applying for citizenship. I responded by saying that citizenship should count for a lot more than it does at present. But the right to vote should be free of charge and not subject to large payments. Because that creates a situation where rich foreign nationals can far more easily afford to buy the right to vote than poorer ones, which is fundamentally unfair and antidemocratic.

When it comes to the ownership of media I know your next gambit will be to try and muddy the waters by attempting to demonstrate that it is impossible to make a clear distinction between what is foreign owned but  primarily aimed at the British and what is simply international and includes Britain amongst its target audience amongst many others. I am sure for example that people outside the UK can access LBC. But most if not all the presenters are British nationals, and most of the subject matter under discussion is primarily of interest to Britons. Most of the people calling in are doing so from somewhere in the UK. But if a court is needed to determine whether something is primarily British or not were such a definition to be challenged then so be it. Because in most cases it would be undeniable

I’ve got to say that I definitely agree that you are as knowledgeable and mature as a typical 16 year old . Well spotted .