Brexit

you posted your essay 8 minutes ago and i submitted a reply to someone else 4 minutes ago. Aren't i allowed to spend 4 minutes replying to somebody else without you trying to jump on my case? Why are people so needy

By this token, are you suggesting that votes at 16 would be 'undemocratic and unfair'?

Your argument seems to suggest that simply because we've have votes at 18 for some time, that this is a case for things not to change. The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969 - 50 years ago. Universal suffrage at 21 was introduced in 1918 - this means that the gap between votes at 21 and votes at 18 was 51 years. The argument of longevity (thankfully) didn't wash back then and it certainly shouldn't now either.

2. the long term economic argument While in the EU the UK is forced to have the same external tariffs as every other member state which is a system that simply does not work given the huge differences in the economies between the southern and northern countries of the EU. This external tariff has meant that the UK has not been able to maximize trade to its own advantage as potential deals with places like the USA have been blocked due to countries like France having their cheese industry damaged. Therefore if we leave the EU we have the option to specalise our trade policy to use alone with countries such as the USA, Canada, India, China, South Korea and many many others offering us trade deals that will benefit us if we leave. Not only this there is a huge number of countries in Africa and Asia developing at a rapid pace and if we are in the EU then the EU could prevent us form forming bonds with these countries that will benefit us in the long term due to decreased costs of production and also amazing potential investments. With all of these benefits the UK does can also have free trade with the EU under Article 23 for 2 years and during that time period a free trade deal can be sorted to prevent WTO rules from being put in place. Therefore we will keep free trade in the EU while having closer economic ties elsewhere in the world that benefit the British people. The world is not just Europe, stop having such a Eurocentric view of the world. In economic terms the Brexit allows the UK to become more globalized in the long term and allow trade to be dictated by comparative advantage which will decrease import prices and increase the UK export international competitiveness therefore increasing standards of living.

3.You make many logical fallacies in your points in your post one being "Benefited the UK profoundly over the past 50 years". Just because EU membership has benefited us in the past it does not mean it will in the future. Poland is an absolute mess as it has became infested with far right politicians and they have completely politicized the courts system, preventing the separation of powers. And the EU has absolutely no way of dealing with this mess as Hungry will veto any action taken against them as they to have a very right wing leader. The EU is no longer a paragon of freedom and safety it has become exploited. There is also the case of Italy which is also having huge disputes with the EU over there spending as the EU are trying to prevent increased spending in the country.
the economic context of the UK was very different now compared to the UK now and the EU has tried controlling countries like Italy and has lost power of Authoritarian governments in the East..

4. 16 year olds such definitely not be able to vote. At my school everyone loudly proclaimed how stupid Brexit was without even knowing what a common market or customs union is! People below 18 simple conform to what their family and friends think and have no idea what ideas are good, they are manipulated by what sounds good e.g raising the minimum wage sounds like a good thing but actually is not, but people my age only use their emotions to make choices, not facts and logic and remain rhetoric of "fighting hatred" and "sticking together" is a propaganda trap many MANY young people will fall into.

No, not at all.

And actually did you read my second point within my argument, that I would welcome it to those who pay taxes, I would also welcome it to all who pay national insurance. Effectively, they are contributing to society by paying into a system which will eventually give back and should have right to say what happens within that system.