A tightly whipped move would be a disservice to the UK's future
Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions offered, unusually, some genuine news (on top of the usual jeering). Responding to a question from Harriet Harman, the prime minister said that he backed offering MPs a vote on whether 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to take part in the EU referendum.
We would of course like to see the government simply come out in support of extending the franchise. Short of that happening, signalling a Commons vote is nonetheless a welcome development.
But it’s not enough for it to be a tightly whipped move with parties demanding their MPs vote a certain way – with David Cameron opposing extending the franchise. We need a free vote.
This is an issue that many MPs and constituents feel very strongly about, but one which didn’t get much attention before the election. Now’s the time for a real open debate on this issue. After all, the prime minister suggested it would be a conscience vote earlier in the year. It would be a disservice not to stick to this.
Why? This referendum is an opportunity to give 16 and 17-year-olds a chance to decide on an issue which really affects them – covering housing, our environment, jobs, migration and a whole host of pressing topics which affect this generation.
The proof is in the pudding. 16 and 17-year-olds threw themselves wholeheartedly into the Scottish referendum, with 75 per cent voting and 97 per cent saying they would vote in future elections.
Well over a hundred thousand – the vast majority – registered. There’s no reason why 16-and 17-year olds across the UK should be denied a similar vote in the EU referendum and miss the chance to engage with British democracy.
Votes at 16 isn’t even a radical idea by UK standards anymore. Hundreds of thousands more young people are set to be given the franchise for local and nationwide elections in Wales and Scotland, with legislation currently making progress in the Scottish parliament and the power to decide on the voting age recently devolved to Wales.
It would be absurd if those same young people were denied a vote in the upcoming EU referendum. But it would also be an injustice if they were given votes at 16 and others in the UK were not.
The prime minister has reaffirmed his desire to reclaim ‘the mantle of One Nation’. Yet with 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote in Scotland and Wales, this could become an issue which drives a wedge between the nations of the UK.
Why have so many different franchises? Instead we could have a UK-wide franchise which is open, democratic and which sends a positive message to our young people that their opinions genuinely count.
This is an issue of both pragmatics and principle – 16 and 17-year-olds are the generation of school-leavers who will most strongly feel the impact of the EU vote in the years to come.
So this Commons vote is a real opportunity to discuss the kind of franchise that is right for a 21st century democracy. The way forwards is clear – Westminster should follow the suit of Scotland and Wales in giving 16 and 17-year-olds a say on their country’s constitutional future.
There are Conservative MPs and ministers, such as Constitutional Reform minister John Penrose, who have previously spoken up for votes at 16 who we hope may still persuade their party to change direction.
Short of that, this vote is a welcome step forward in the push for a truly inclusive franchise. As the Votes at 16 coalition have suggested, on this constitutional issue it’s only right that instead of being told how to vote by party whips, MPs can weigh up the arguments for themselves.
After the uplifting experience in Scotland, the push for a fairer franchise now stands every chance of succeeding.
Katie Ghose is chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. Follow her on Twitter
14 Responses to “MPs should vote with their consciences for votes at 16”
Godfrey Paul
Children should not be given the vote.
AlanGiles
The age of disillusion will set in earlier. We all know that politicians of all parties will say what they think people want to hear – they don’t believe they can do half of it. However, I think if you do this to 16/17 year olds you will only do it once, and they will just ignore the ballot box thereafter.
The only people who vote regularly are pensioners (hope over experience?), and I am not convinced that 16 year olds will not be seen by politicians as easy to dupe. They are patronising enough to older people – just image the oleaginous “charm” that will be ladelled out by some of them to 16/17 first time voters
bluebottle1
This is all because the SNP have started this, Unless you have paid tax or NI then sorry but no vote until you are 18.
swat
I am against Votes at 16. If16 , why not 14, or even 11?
They simply are not mature or have the experience at 16. and BTW they shouldn’t be allowed to marry or smoke or join the Army or drink at 16/17 either. Its an absolute nonsense. And as someone has pointed out they don’t pay taxes at 16, and all of them should be at home with their parents doing their homework.
Walter Houston
16- and 17-year-olds are not children. The law may classify them as such for certain purposes, but they certainly don’t regard themselves as children, and they are just as capable as over-18s of grasping the issues and reaching an informed decision.