Votes for 16-Year-Olds Are Coming in the U.K. Here's What to Know.
Analysts have described the plan as the country's largest expansion of voting rights in decades. The last nationwide reduction in voting age, to 18 from 21, came more than 50 years ago.
'Declining trust in our institutions and democracy itself has become critical, but it is the responsibility of government to turn this around and renew our democracy, just as generations have done before us,' the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, wrote in an introduction to a policy paper outlining her plan, which also includes promises to tighten laws on foreign donations to political parties, and to simplify voter registration.
Here's a guide to the change and its implications.
Do many places give 16-year-olds the vote?
Several nations do, including Austria, Malta and Brazil, while in Greece the voting age is set at 17. Others allow 16-year-olds to participate only in some elections: In Greece and Belgium, they can help choose members of the European Parliament, but they cannot vote in federal elections. Britain has been in that category: Elections for the separate parliaments that control many policy areas in Scotland and Wales already had a voting age of 16.
Is this change a surprise?
No. The center-left Labour Party has backed votes for 16-year-olds for some time, and the idea was part of the official platform on which it won last year's general election.
Will it definitely happen? How long will it take?
The move requires a law, which will have to get through both houses of Parliament, so this change is some way off. But Labour has a large majority in the elected House of Commons, and the appointed House of Lords traditionally restrains itself from interfering with election promises. There's plenty of time, too: The next general election is not expected until 2029.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
17 minutes ago
- News24
‘That's going to be my legacy': Siviwe Gwarube plans to ‘turn education system on its head'
Siviwe Gwarube talks to News24 about her determination to turn SA's education system on its head. Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Start your FREE trial now Show Comments ()
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Europeans meet with Iranian officials face-to-face for first time since Israel, US bombings as sanctions loom
European diplomats met with Iranians on Friday face-to-face for the first time since Israel and the U.S. bombed the country last month. The "serious, frank and detailed" meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, lasted for around four hours and the officials all agreed to meet again for continued negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. Sanctions that were lifted on Iran in 2015 after it agreed to restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program could be reimposed if Iran doesn't comply with requirements. One of Europe's E3 nations – Britain, France and Germany, who held the talks with Iran – could bring back sanctions under the "snapback" mechanism, which allows one of the European countries to bring back U.N. sanctions if Iran violates the conditions. European leaders have also said that sanctions will start being reinstated by the end of August if there is no progress on reining in Iran's nuclear program. "A possible delay in triggering snapback has been floated to the Iranians on the condition that there is credible diplomatic engagement by Iran, that they resume full cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and that they address concerns about their highly-enriched uranium stockpile," a European diplomat said on condition of anonymity before the talks on Friday. The diplomat added that the snapback mechanism "remains on the table." Iran said that the U.S. needs to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal – after President Trump pulled America out of it in 2018 – saying Iran has "absolutely no trust in the United States." The U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear sites on June 22, a little over a week after Israel had bombed the country over national security concerns about its nuclear program. Iran responded by attacking Israel and a U.S. Army base in Qatar. Isreal and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. The IAEA issued a concerning report in May that said that Iran's stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium had grown by nearly 50% in three months.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
World Court's Climate Change Opinion Could Alter Sustainability Reporting Debate
Judges are seated as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opens hearings ... More into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact, Monday, Dec. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) After over two years of proceedings, the International Court of Justice released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The Court found that large GHG emitting countries, like the United States, must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those of private business. While not directly addressing sustainability reporting, advocates will invoke the opinion to argue nations must implement reporting standards to monitor and force businesses to reduce GHG emissions. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UN Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, while non-binding, gives an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23. The 140 page opinion primarily focuses on interpreting obligations under existing climate treaties, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. It also looked at a recent opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that found climate change obligations exist in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Finally, it considered customary international law. The court found that countries are obligated to take action to reduce GHG gas emissions. Failure to act could result in large GHG emitting countries owing reparations to smaller countries for the adverse impacts of climate change. Opening the door to a wave of litigation before the ICJ as developing countries seek compensation. Notably, these obligations do not arise exclusively from the Paris Agreement or the UNFCCC. The Court rejected arguments made by large countries, including the United States, Australia, and Germany, that the creation of a treaty that specifically addresses climate change overrides any other international law on the subject. This is known as lex specialis. The Court found a 'duty to prevent significant harm to the environment' exists under customary international law. The Court's rejection of lex specialis effectively renders Trump's exit from the Paris Agreement as moot when it comes to liability. The court established liability in two parts, or elements. "The main elements of the obligation of prevention in the context of protection of the climate system are (a) the environmental harm to be prevented and (b) due diligence as the required standard of conduct.' Looking at sustainability reporting, the relevant obligations are found in paragraphs 281 and 282 of the opinion, addressing the due diligence requirement. Quoting the ITLOS opinion, the ICJ stated that countries are required to The opinion then applied the standard to climate change. Sustainability advocates will use that obligation to argue that countries must enact sustainability reporting requirements. Sustainability reporting, and the broader environmental, social, and governance reporting, requires companies to disclose GHG emissions through financial statements. For now, sustainability reporting regulations only require companies to provide information. They do not require businesses to reduce GHG emissions. However, once the information is publicly available, advocates and interested nations can use that information to force companies to reduce emissions through regulatory action and the courts. As the European Union debates significant reductions to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, expect advocates to argue the changes violate the ICJ opinion. Similar arguments will arise in other jurisdictions around the world. However, the debate is political and the opinion is not legally binding. Countries and their elected leaders will choose whether or not to acknowledge the opinion. Application will come through the courts.
