Further to the previous

It is appropriate that on the fortieth anniversary of the 1975 referendum that kept us in the EEC we should go on discussing the forthcoming referendum.

As it happens the question of EU citizens, who live in the UK but have not bothered to take UK citizenship for reasons of their own that I fully accept and respect, voting in the referendum and other elections has come up though is unlikely to go far. A European Union Citizens (Electoral Rights) Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Balfe and read for the first time, which is a formality. Its purpose is to

Make provision to allow European Union citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom to vote in parliamentary elections and to become members of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

The "connected purposes", one assumes, refers to the referendum. I do not see this Bill going very far as Private Members' Bills need HMG's support to achieve even a Second Reading, let alone further stages. All the same, it is a silly idea, especially as it seems to make no provisions even for the length of time an EU citizen has been resident in the UK in order to qualify.

Lord Balfe, a former member of the Toy Parliament, is a Conservative though he seems to have started life as a Labour politician.

And now, back to the question of whether children should be given the vote in the referendum or not. The subject of 16 and 17 year-olds voting was raised in the House, as this blog reported, and will, undoubtedly come up again.

Curiously enough, part of the same age group was discussed in the ensuing debate on the Queen's Speech. Speaking for the Liberal-Democrats, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, a barrister himself said inter alia [scroll down when you go to the link]:

In the justice area there are several proposals which are to be welcomed. I will mention just four. First, the proposed policing and criminal justice Bill promises that 17 year-olds will be treated as children under all the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, bringing English law into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular ensuring that 17 year-olds have a legal right to be interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult.

I assume this means that 16 year-olds are already treated as children under all the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Equally, I assume that Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who asked the question on the subject, and his party (Labour) do not object to that or to the notion that 17 year-olds should be reduced to being children when questioned by the police or required to give evidence. Yet, at the same time, they propose that both those groups should be raised to the status of adults when asked to vote in a referendum. Logical, this ain't.

First attempt to change the conditions for voting in the referendum

Readers of this blog will recall that I mentioned who will be entitled to vote in the coming EU referendum. In brief it will include everyone who is entitled to vote in a General Election with the addition of peers of the realm if they are entitled to vote in local elections and citizens of Gibraltar (something I forgot to mention but I do not think anyone will object to that). I also said that, undoubtedly, there will be attempts to change those qualifications to make them more "inclusive".

The first attempt involves qualification by age. In the UK as a whole people can vote once they have attained their eighteenth year but for the Scottish independence referendum the Scottish Assembly gave the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. There is now an attempt to add that group to those who should be able to vote in the EU referendum. HMG is, rightly in my opinion, resisting it.

On June 1 Lord Kennedy of Southwark asked HMG:

what plans they have to consider proposals to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in any referendum on membership of the European Union.

HMG has no plans at present to consider any such thing, as Baroness Anelay of St Johns told him:

This is an issue of national importance, so the parliamentary franchise is the right approach. It was the franchise used for previous UK referendums. The Government have no plans to lower the voting age.

Ah yes, said Lord Kennedy, but this is an issue that will have a profound effect on the 16 and 17 year-olds' future and should they not be allowed to vote on such matters.

Given that Lord Kennedy's party has resisted the idea of asking anybody in the country on this issue that will have a profound effect on all our futures it seems a little odd that he should be so worried about 16 and 17 year-olds not having a say in it. Furthermore, I would say the decision will have a profound effect on the future of 14 and 15 year-olds and, as it was mentioned in the subsequent discussion, some 14 year-olds have more sense than many 17 and even 18 year-olds.

In the end the arguments for making that change boil down to two: there are certain things that young people of that age can already do, though joining the Armed Forces and getting married is something they can do only with their parents' consent and the Scots have, presumably in the hopes that this group will vote for independence introduced an anomaly into an already complicated electoral system.

We were told by several peers that the 16 and 17 year-olds embraced their right with enthusiasm though the evidence for that is not all that clear:

The pattern is much as would be anticipated from the experience of other countries such as Austria and Norway that have already enfranchised 16 and 17 year olds. On the one hand, encouraged perhaps by mum and dad to make the journey to the polling station, 16 and 17 year olds were more likely to vote than were those aged 18-24, many of whom would no longer be living at home. On the other hand, they were still less likely to vote than those who were more than twice their age. To that extent, the referendum turnout amongst 16 and 17 year olds still reflects the general tendency for younger voters to be less likely to make it to the polls. Those who look to the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year olds in all elections as a way of boosting turnout should, it seem, not set their expectations too high.

More precisely, according to ICM’s survey, 75% of 16 and 17 year olds voted, compared with 54% of 18-24 year olds and 72% of 25-34 year olds. The turnout in all three groups is markedly lower than the estimate for 35-54 year olds (85%) and those aged 55 and over (92%).

Or, in other words, the fact that they no longer have compulsory education (though there is some talk of changing that) and can legitimately indulge in sexual activity is not necessarily a good reason for giving those 16 and 17 year-olds the vote even if mum and dad will chase them out to vote, particularly when we note that the turn-out for that referendum was exceptionally high.

The subject of turn-out among young voters came up again in the subsequent debate on the Queen's Speech that covered matters of constitutional importance (and anything that noble Lords thought they might drag in).

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, speaking first for the Labour Party, said [scroll down]:

In the last election, for example, 43% of those aged between 18 and 24 who were registered to vote voted, whereas 78% of those aged over 65 did so. I am glad that the turnout was so high among the over-65s. I worry that the Government will not be a Government for the young. Of the 43% who voted in this youngest age group, only around a quarter supported the Conservatives—so the Conservatives have the support of maybe 12% of those aged between 18 and 25.

One sympathizes with the noble Lord's worries but they are entirely misplaced. It seems that the majority of the "young" do not care all that much who is in the government and those who do tend to vote left, not an unknown phenomenon in history. Given the figures for older groups of voters, people tend to overcome both those mistakes. By the time of the next election a good many of the "young" will decide to vote and may well vote Conservative, depending on what this government does in the meantime.

In any case that is no indicator of how the same "young" will vote in an IN/OUT referendum and hardly an argument for extending that vote to 16 and 17 year-olds who would then be in the slightly anomalous position of not being allowed to decide whether they can drink alcohol or smoke but being considered old enough to make electoral decisions.

As I said before, I suspect that this is the first of many attempts to widen the electorate of the EU referendum.

Who will be allowed to take part in the campaigns?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon put down a very pertinent Written Question.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that measures are in place to prevent the CIA or any other United States Government organisations, or any other foreign country organisations including the institutions of the European Union, from financing or otherwise assisting organisations or individuals campaigning in the debate on the United Kingdom's position in the European Union prior to any referendum being held on the subject.

Well, I don't know about the CIA or any other US government organization: it is my impression that they have largely lost interest in Europe and its problems and were only interested in the first place because of the looming Soviet menace.

We do, however, have a potential problem with various EU institutions. As we know, they are given to providing propaganda information that, naturally enough, assists those who insist that Britain's place is firmly at the  heart of Europe and if we can't  have the heart then we'll make do with the fingernails.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire on behalf of HMG assured their Lordships that "measures are already in place". We must keep calm and carry on doing whatever it is we are doing.

Section 119 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 regulates donations to permitted participants. A donation is money, goods or services which is given:
towards campaign spending; orwithout charge or on non-commercial terms, andhas a value over £500.

Examples of donations may include a gift of money or other property, sponsorship of an event or publication or free/specially discounted use of an office.

So who are the permitted participants?

[A]n individual registered in a UK electoral register; a UK-registered company which is incorporated within the European Union and carries on business in the UK; a Great Britain-registered political party; a UK-registered trade union; a UK-registered building society; a UK-registered limited liability partnership that carries on business in the UK; a UK-registered friendly society; and a UK-based incorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK; a UK-registered friendly society; and a UK-based incorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK.

Am I the only person who can see all sorts of possibilities there for the EU to become involved? For example, what happens when one or more of those organizations start inviting Commissioners who just happen to pay their own way out of the taxpayers' money so generously supplied to them?