Some more about that discussion of 16 and 17 year-olds

As I pointed out earlier there seemed to be a good deal of discussion going on in the House of Commons about the somewhat peripheral question of 16 and 17 year-olds voting in the forthcoming referendum. Somebody (I shall have to check that out tomorrow) compared the arguments against people who are treated as children in most ways and increasingly so to those used by Lord Curzon and others against women's suffrage. Or, in other words, according to this particular Labour MP (sitting next to Harriet Harman, she of the pink van) considers that there is no difference between women of any age and experience and teenagers of, necessarily, limited knowledge and experience. What, I cannot help wondering, would those tough Labour ladies of yore have made of this drivel.

Meanwhile, I thought I would check out something and that is the proposals to raise the age of compulsory education. We haven't quite got to that but it is in the pipeline and once it is introduced, the law will maintain that 16 and 17 year-olds will not be old enough to choose whether they want to study or work but, apparently, old enough to make decisions about this country's membership of the European Union.

In the meantime, I have found an interesting paper on the subject, which tells me that

The Education and Skills Act 2008 increased the minimum age at which young people in England can leave learning. This requires them to continue in education or training to the age of 17 from 2013 and to 18 from 2015. Young people will be able to choose whether to stay in full-time education, undertake work-based learning such as an Apprenticeship, or part-time education or training if they are employed, self-employed or volunteering for more than 20 hours per week.

Or, in other words, the spectrum of choices for 16 and 17 year-olds is being narrowed by law and they are increasingly reduced to the status of children. Could it be that the people who want them to vote in the referendum actually believe that and think that, being children, they will be easier to influence?

As if we lacked any of it

Lord Dykes (and here) who has turned up on this blog from time to time as the man who is guaranteed to come up with some easily debunkable europhiliac comments has surpassed himself. He has introduced a Private Member's Bill, which is unlikely to go very far, under the title of European Union (Information etc) Bill.

Its purpose is

Make provision for information to be available in various public places relating to the activities and organisation of the European Union; to make provision for the flying of the flag of the European Union on various government and public buildings; to provide information to further the establishment of twinning arrangements between towns in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union in accordance with the European Union’s town twinning support scheme; and for connected purposes.

His lordship is entitled to his ideas, of course, and is entitled to some of the House's time and expense (it will not be a great deal) but one cannot help wondering what he has in mind.

What, for example, is his definition of "various public places"? Are we to have this gumf showered on us when we go to public parks? Or enter a public house? And - crucial question - will this Bill, should it ever become an Act, which it will not, allow for well-researched information about the European Union that does not exactly present a rosy picture also be available?

As to the rest, there are already provisions for the flying of that wretched flag on public buildings but, curiously enough, a good many people do not want to see it. As these are public buildings, funded by the public a.k.a. taxpayer, the public should have some say on the matter.

Nor do we lack information about all those jollies for civic dignitaries and suchlike twinning arrangements. So, what precisely is the purpose of this Bill (not that it is going anywhere)?

Second Reading

The Second Reading of the Referendum Bill is going on at this moment and it can be watched here. I spent a few minutes doing so but the discussion seemed to be about 16 and 17 year-olds voting with nobody bothering to make any substantial points. So, I stopped watching and shall read Hansard tomorrow. But anyone who has time to dip in and out of what will prove to be a long debate is welcome to do so.

Are they deliberately destroying the country?

Anyone who gives it any thought knows that the amount of damage a government can do outweighs the amount of good by a factor of about a thousand. However, it is rare for a government to try to destroy the country it is supposed to be in charge of deliberately. Usually the outcome is more of unintended consequences or lack of understanding. However, as one looks at the government of Vlad and his Chekists one has to come to the conclusion that they actually want to destroy a potentially very great country.

We all know that the money that poured into the country while oil and gas prices were high was largely stolen by Putin's very own oligarchs, the ones who did not speak against him and made deals whenever he or his minions wanted it. We know that the country's economy is doing very badly and it is not the Western sanctions that are the biggest problem. We know that the war in the Caucasus and now in eastern Ukraine are drains of money, resources and human lives with no real gain in sight unless one considers the growing vicious and obscurantist nationalism a gain. (Few people of any intelligence do and, I suspect, most Russians simply ignore the blather that pours out of the state controlled media.)

This story, however, shows that the Cheka state is determined to destroy the country's future as well as its present.

One of Russia’s largest scientific benefactors has cancelled millions of dollars in funding after the government branded his foundation a “foreign agent”, a label used to target organisations seen as hostile to the state.

The move to alienate 82-year-old Dmitry Zimin has stirred Russia’s scientific community, which has watched with despair as mismanagement, dwindling budgets and a “brain drain” have eroded their capabilities.

The move follows a dismal month for scientists, as dozens of universities and institutes lost access to online journals after the government failed to pay nearly $1m in overdue subscription fees, and a botched satellite launch became the country’s 16th failed lift-off in six years.

While the Russian government has ordered deep cuts in its space and hi-tech programmes, Zimin’s Dynasty Foundation had just raised its annual budget to $8.6m to be allocated to research stipends, publishing, and outreach.

So, we have a situation in which universities and institutes, which are funded by the government are losing access to vitally important online journals because their funder has failed to pay a sum that would not buy one day in the life of the average oligarch and the private Foundation that is prepared to do the funding is being hounded out of the country.

There is no point in showing pictures of Yury Gagarin as the Guardian article does - Soviet science, despite its initial victory in the space race was not that brilliant but considerably better than the what we have now. Indeed, we have a government that in the name of some perverse "patriotism" is prepared to destroy the country's science and technology, its future.

Since its founding in 2002, the Dynasty Foundation has been praised by Moscow for both its generosity and its strictly non-political work. In February, Zimin became the first-ever recipient of a “loyalty to science” state award, presented by Russia’s minister of education and science, Dmitry Livanov.

The justice ministry initially explained its decision to add Dynasty to the “foreign agents” list by saying the foundation was engaged in political activity and technically received money from abroad, as Zimin holds overseas accounts.

The ministry then broadened its explanation to blame Dynasty’s funding of Liberal Mission, an organisation run by former economy minister Yevgeny Yasin which aims to spread liberal values in Russia.

Supporters say the attack on Zimin just months after his award is both self-defeating and a sign of government disarray.

Zimin, speaking ahead of the move, suggested that the Kremlin’s extreme pro-nationalist rhetoric had created a chilly climate for philanthropists who, by nature, serve as a reminder that Russia still has room to improve.

"Not invented here so we don't like it" is not exactly unknown in other countries (think of our ridiculous discussions about the NHS) but this is carrying that idea to a point of complete lunacy. How is it justified?

Dynasty’s blacklisting has been met with a heated response from Russia’s scientific community.

More than 3,000 researchers, writers, publishers, and students have signed an open letter calling on the justice ministry to reverse the decision, which they called “not an ordinary example of mindless bureaucratic zeal but a direct blow to the pride, prestige, fame, and future of the country”.

Scientists have also called for a rally to be held in Moscow on 6 June in support of Dynasty, and Russian science generally. “We can’t sit idly by and watch as the government destroys one of the best charitable funds,” the rally’s organisers wrote on Facebook. “We can’t accept the fact that the government sees teachers, scientists, and patrons as enemies.”

In the wake of the academic backlash, some state-backed media have sought to embellish the claims about Dynasty’s political agenda. An NTV news report broadcast on 31 May cited “suspicions” that Zimin’s son, Boris, was secretly funding opposition activist Aleksei Navalny and independent channel Dozhd TV.

So the philanthropist's son is suspected though not proved to be funding a media outlet that is completely legal and, possibly an opposition activist who is mostly allowed to get on with things as the state has no idea what to do about him. That, of course, is an excellent reason for closing off funds to scientific publications, conferences and various other events, particularly when, let us remember, the government is not paying for any of it either.

About three and a half thousand people came out in Moscow to demonstrate against this anti-scientific, anti-educational obscurantism. Not bad on an issue that is not, perhaps, all that clearly known and understood, at a time when most Moscovites spend their week-ends in their gardens dealing with fruit and vegetables.

Dozhd has pictures of which I am reproducing two. The slogan in the first one is well known and, for once, apposite: "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." The second one says: "If you bury science, you bury the country."

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.

Some of the names seem a little random

Readers of this blog may have noted that Russia has responded to the various sanctions imposed by the European Union and its member states (well, some of them) on individuals of that country by issuing a list of its own, though whether any of these people actually want to go to Russia is a moot point. We know that the members of the Russian elite desperately do want to come to the West, to bring their money here, to buy property, to do their fantastically extensive shopping, to send their children to British schools and American universities and so on.

The list is a little odd and one cannot help thinking that it was put together somewhat randomly. Some are in a position where they could have influenced decisions, though the influence wielded by the Toy Parliament's various committees is strictly limited; some may have made pronouncements; some are just known to hold negative views of the Russian government and President Putin himself.

Some remain incomprehensible. Nick Clegg? Why him? Has Andrew Robathan really been more active than some other MPs? As for Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the punishment seems a little harsh though he has made some public comments that might have displeased Vlad and his Chekists:

On 18 March 2014, during an interview with CBC Radio News, Rifkind spoke out against the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, stating that this risked destabilising the entire area and European politics in general. In his opinion Ukrainian forces had demonstrated "remarkable restraint" against Russian "humiliation", and had turned their military disadvantage into a substantial "moral advantage". While declaring "robust economic sanctions" to be the best response to Crimean situation, and describing a number of possible options, he nevertheless referred to the Western implementation as "pathetic", claiming that current measures affected a mere 23 individuals, and inferred this to be the reason why Russia seemed unfazed by sanction threats.

2015 has not been Sir Malcolm's year. Or, maybe, this will go some way towards rehabilitating him.

Not unexpectedly, Poland has the largest number on this honourable list with 18, with no-one else even close. Latvia and the UK have 9, Sweden and Estonia 8, which gives one some idea how much the Russians fear the the tiny Baltic countries.

The French group of 4 seems to be particularly odd: Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Former MEP, Greens group, Bruno Le Roux. MP and chairman of the Socialist, Radical, Citizen and Miscellaneous Left group at the French National Assembly, Bernard-Henri Levy, Public figure and Henri Malosse. President of the European Economic and Social Committee.

Astonishingly, they even found a Greek to ban: Theodore Margellos. Co-owner of the consulting firm Informed Judgment Partners.