You're right that 16 year olds deserve a vote. It's their future, and 16 year olds are smart and politically engaged.
Also there were huge other legitimacy issues, like dodgy donations. And data breaches and highly, highly targeted advertising, allowing Cambridge Analytics to buy a result.
That's on top of the leave prospectus (essentially, EFTA + EEA, before the vote) being reinterpreted as the hardest Brexit imaginable.
The fact that countries (including the UK) disenfranchise non-citizen residents isn't ideal either.
Having chatted to a few of that age group about the subject, I agree. That generation is also more flexible, more mobile than the last, so I doubt they would think twice about leaving the UK in pursuit of better opportunities abroad.
I mean, if I was 16 again, moving to the EU for Schengen access alone would be highly attractive !
> the euro and schengen
The UK was never going to join the euro, that was one of the major carve-outs. There are also other EU countries operating outside the euro and highly-unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Technically the UK was not in Schengen, sure, again it was another UK carve-out. But with the EU passport there was no practical difference for the holder, you had the same freedom of movement in the Schengen area as a UK(EU) passport holder.
Leaving the EU also meant loss of access to EU security databases etc., which is why "stopping the boats" is harder from outside than within.
the franchise was identical to that for general elections
any attempt to alter the franchise for the referendum would have been rightly seen as gerrymandering
> UK citizens settled abroad weren’t allowed a say because the vote was only “advisory”.
over the past 7 years I've not heard this one before!
it is not possible to have a binding referendum in the UK due to parliamentary sovereignty, all referendums are "advisory"
people living abroad retain their right to vote for 15 years (and regain it if they come back)
so, it would still be non-binding
who cares what reality is as long as it's marketed the right way?
> The Fixed Term Parliaments Act purported to do exactly that
yeah and look how well that worked
It wasn't the advisory nature of the referendum which denied some British citizens living abroad a say, it was that they'd been domiciled abroad for at least certain number of years. That has long been a rule of our system. Those folks also did not get to vote in UK general elections.
The vote by the citizens within the UK was largely in the end an irrelevance, due to the consequences of the Miller court case, which pushed the decision back to Parliament. It ensured that the referendum actually was advisory in fact, as well as in law. So any arguments about the fairness of the referendum are moot.
The Parliament had a vote on if, and under what conditions, to authorise the sending of the Article 50 notification. They chose to allow it, and to do so with no conditions whatsoever. Giving the government of the day a "blank cheque".
That is the vote people should complain of, the MPs were generally whipped, and overwhelmingly voted to grant the blank cheque to leave.
The MPs could have chosen to either not pass the Bill, or attach whatever conditions to it. There would be no legal recourse if they had done so - but they may not have been re-elected.
It wasn’t a fair vote because of deliberate disenfranchisement. UK citizens settled abroad weren’t allowed a say because the vote was only “advisory”. It could also be argued that 16-year olds could have been given a say in their entire future (vs, say, a choice of government for the next five years).
A minute sliver was also taken as a mandate to veer towards the most ideological extremes.I like to imagine many of the reactions if remain had gotten a tiny majority and in conclusion we had joined the euro and schengen.