Who wants votes for 16- and 17-year-olds?
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the EU referendum. They argue it is a long-term matter that will have an impact on the future of today’s teenagers for decades to come. The Conservatives are against the idea because they think it would create a precedent for this age group to vote in all elections, especially since they were also given a say in the Scottish referendum.
Why has it become a battleground in the EU referendum debate?
The issue has arisen because Labour and the Lib Dems have a majority in the House of Lords, where they voted to amend the EU referendum bill to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. This has caused a revival of hostilities between the Lords and the Conservative government, which only has a majority in the House of Commons. It means the two houses are heading for a parliamentary standoff known as “ping pong”, whereby legislation is passed back and forth between the two chambers because they cannot agree on an amendment.
What is happening on Tuesday?
The Commons is preparing to reject the Lords’ amendment for the first time, kicking off a tug-of-war between the two chambers. On Monday, a Downing Street spokeswoman confirmed that the government would not accept the Lords amendment on votes for 16- and 17-year-olds.
How will the impasse end?
There are two obvious ways this could happen. The government can use the Parliament Act to pass legislation blocked by the Lords, but only a year after the third reading of the bill. This means that the EU referendum bill could only be passed in this way from September next year. Alternatively, the government could decide the wrangling is not worth it, and give in to the demands for 16- and 17-year-olds to have the vote, or the Lords could give up the battle.
Is there another way?
There appears to be a final sneaky way in which the government is preparing to kill off the Lords’ amendment. The Speaker is likely to say the EU referendum bill is subject to “financial privilege” because it could cost millions to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds. The Lords are not meant to interfere with financial matters when a bill has been so designated by the Speaker, although they were willing to override the convention when they blocked the tax credit secondary legislation.
Is there something deeper going on than a row over whether 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to vote?
The Commons-Lords battle holds up the whole process of calling a referendum, narrowing Downing Street’s options for the date of a vote. The referendum cannot be called for at least six months after the EU referendum bill is passed, which may now not happen until after Christmas. If the Parliament Act had to be used in September next year, this would delay the whole referendum until 2017.
How could it affect the final outcome?
No one knows for sure, but politicians are obviously considering the electoral implications of the decision. The in camp tends to believe teenagers are more willing to view the EU positively, while some Eurosceptics believe the young have been indoctrinated into loving the EU and therefore will do everything to stop more teenagers getting the vote.
What does Downing Street say?
“We will seek to overturn [the Lords’ amendment]. The Commons has taken a very clear position on this.”
What does Labour say?
Chris Bryant, shadow leader of the Commons, said: “We will try to win the vote on Tuesday, and it may well be that we’ll lose, but ... the Lords is not going to back down. If [the government] want their bill, they are going to have to cave in.”
