Examining Children’s Rights and Whether They Were Considered in the Brexit Process

Melissa Beggs – 1st year Social Policy

Abstract

This study examines whether the Brexit process breached the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although the vote was over four years ago, Brexit is still a divisive matter today. One cohort of the public that did not have a vote in the matter was children, those aged under 18. However, this essay questions whether they had their voice heard through other mediums. The research was carried out by investigating the extent to which the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union will affect children in matters of education, employment and health. Through numerous academic studies, the essay further explores how children’s views could be taken seriously through the mode of campaigning, protesting and proxy voting and whether this holds the same political weight that a vote does. The argument has been made that children are already viewed as adults in the law context as they can be held criminally responsible at the age of 10 (12 in Scotland) and can pay tax at age 16. Therefore, they should be able to have a say in their future. To conclude, children will be greatly affected by the outcome of the European Union referendum in the United Kingdom. However, it has been argued that their voice opinion could be heard through the medium of protesting. Ultimately, getting a vote in the matter is the only option that carries political weight. As children did not avail of this right, their opinion could not be taken seriously. Hence, the Brexit process did breach the United Nations Conventions of the Rights of the Child.

In June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union with a majority of 51.9% (Electoral Commission, 2019). This was a highly contentious vote as the implications and what could be lost if the UK leaves the EU were so unknown and will continue until a deal has been finalised (Morphet, 2017). Three years later, the UK finds itself still living with the same uncertainty. Further, many argued that the referendum ‘raised questions around democratic legitimacy as those deeply affected could not vote’, i.e. those below 18 (Brandle et al., 2018: 825).  Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a child is defined as ‘every human being below eighteen’ (OHCHR, 2020). Article 12 of the UNCRC stipulates that children have the right to express their views in all matters affecting them and to have their views considered and taken seriously (OHCHR, 2020). The UNCRC is an international human rights treaty that the UK ratified in 1991; hence they must abide by it (Gov.UK, 2019). This essay will assess how Brexit will affect children and argue that voting is a means to have their views considered and taken seriously. Therefore, as children did not avail of this right, the Brexit process was in breach of children’s rights legislation.

A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to answer a question on a particular proposal’ (Electoral Commission, 2019). Therefore, it is unique as it is a single issue, and voters have one vote to cast between two options, usually yes or no. It is an example of direct democracy. The votes are counted for the whole of the UK rather than for each constituency. Thus, it differs from a general election, usually every five years, and you vote for a candidate from your constituency who implements policies on your behalf. This is a representative democracy (Gov.UK, 2019). Therefore, it is important to understand the uniqueness of this vote, as, unlike general or local elections, there will not be a chance for those under 18-years old to have their say on the matter in the future.

How Brexit may affect children

This section will assess a few of how the UK’s exit from the European Union may affect children in both the present and in their future aspirations as adults, focusing on education, employment and health. However, we must understand due to the precarious nature of Brexit, the following is not set in stone but simply a possibility until a deal is finalised. University is seen as one of the logical paths to higher education; it is an opportunity that many children aspire to and avail of, with approximately 364,000 under 21s accepted to a university in 2017 (Bolton, 2019). Further, as a university is seen as employment, its importance is ingrained in children. Morphet (2017) analyses that Brexit will mean a loss of schemes, such as Erasmus, funding for research and staff. The Erasmus scheme has allowed UK students to study full time at EU universities outside the UK. However, this loss may only be felt by students from Great Britain, as the Irish government have agreed to fund Erasmus grants for students from Northern Ireland to enable them to still participate in the scheme (Cerulus, 2020). Morphet concludes that these possible losses to ‘students, staff and research’ are ‘considerable’. The loss of funding and staff can harm the quality of teaching in the university. The loss of schemes such as the Erasmus means a loss of opportunity to gain life experience of a different culture. As we can see, Brexit will have an impact on universities. As many children aspire to attend university in the future, children should have a say in any referendum that will affect these institutions.

Looking beyond university, Ellison (2017) assessed how the social, political and economic factors of leaving the EU would influence young people’s transition from education to employment. She finds that the departure will mean losing vital funding for programs to help vulnerable children with this transition, although the damage may be mitigated if a deal is reached (Ellison, 2017). However, she determines that unless the UK replaces the lost funding, the effect Brexit will have on these vulnerable children will worsen (Ellison, 2017).  An example of a program that may be lost is the EU 2020 strategy Youth on the Move, which will focus on vulnerable young people with a low level of education to help them transition from education to work by calling for sustainable integrated support measures (Ellison, 2017). Therefore, from this article, it is evident that Brexit will affect vulnerable children disproportionately to the rest, as leaving the EU means losing vital funding for programmes to support these young people. Therefore, this demonstrates that the Brexit process is a matter that will affect children, and according to article 12 of the UNCRC, the appropriate mechanisms should have been put in place for children to express their views on the matter and have them taken seriously.

Not only will Brexit influence children’s future but also their present, as Iacobucci (2019), a doctor writing for the British Medical Journal, explains that there are already several factors affecting children’s healthcare, such as child poverty, and fears this will be further extenuated by leaving the EU. This is again due to the loss of EU funding and illustrates another aspect of children’s lives that will be affected by Brexit—hence demonstrating that Brexit is a matter that will affect children. They, therefore, have the right to have their opinions heard and valued on the issue. Rawl (2001: 187) states direct democracy ‘gives decisions to the people affected by them’. From above, we can see that leaving the European Union will affect children and therefore should have been included in the decision making, i.e. the right to vote.

Arguments for Children’s Votes

As this essay has argued above, Brexit is a matter which will affect children and therefore, as stated under the UNCRC, they should have had their views considered and taken seriously, and one means to do this is through voting. This paragraph will evaluate the arguments put forward as to why children should not have the vote and the counter-arguments. Many theorists argue that children should not have the right to vote as they are too young and immature, that they don’t understand what they are voting for or do not care about politics (Chan & Clayton, 2006: Mori Social Research Institute, 2003). However, many of these arguments can be said for adults as well, as adults do not have to pass a competency test to vote (Rehfield, 2011). A report carried out by the Childs Rights International Network (2018: 20) tackles many of these common theories and draws a comparison between these explanations and the ones put forward to deny women the vote, and argues a ‘child’s right to participate in politics is futile without the right to vote.  They claim that children are not interested in politics is further challenged by a research project carried out by children into children’s perspectives of article 12 of the UNCRC (Frick, 2011). They make several suggestions to ensure children’s involvement in decision making: reduce the voting age to 16;  introduce a Minister for Youth; government be more proactive in including young people in research for reports, and establish a stronger link between the government and youth and school councils to ensure children are involved in decision making. Therefore, although they suggest the voting age be reduced to 16, the project was carried out by a wide age range (8-17 years old) of children. Therefore, it demonstrates that children younger than 16 have a keen interest in government policy.

Wolf et al. (2015) evaluate the inconsistencies in the ways children are categorised, as in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the age to be held criminally responsible is 10 years old, this differs slightly in Scotland where it is 12 years old, compared, to the voting age which is 18. They argue that children are viewed as responsible actors in a non-political context and hold rights in other contexts (Wolf et al., 2015). This implies that children are citizens, and the fact they do not grant them rights like any other citizen calls for justification (Wolf et al., 2015). They conclude that children do possess the capacity for involvement in political decision making before the age of 18 (Wolf et al., 2015). Advocacy for children’s participation in a democracy is not a relatively new idea as French statesman Turgot, from the 18th century, believed children as young as ten were able to be participative citizens (Cockburn, 2013). More recently, Martin (2018) has assessed how children are allowed to speak out and influence society but are afraid to allow these views to carry any real political weight. He concludes that we should not let fear overcome the deliberative inclusion of children.

This paragraph will focus specifically on the political inclusion of 16-17-year olds. Under the UNCRC, this age cohort is considered children and was not allowed to vote in the EU referendum despite being treated as an adult in other ways. At 16, a child can get a job, pay taxes and pay an adult fare, and hence treated as an adult in all other aspects of society but not when it comes to politics. Further, you are deemed mature enough to legally marry, work full-time and join the army (Full Fact, 2018). Hence the law can be seen as a contradiction of the ‘maturity’ argument for refusing under 16-17-year-olds the vote, as it can then be argued that if you are mature enough to marry an MP, you are mature enough to vote for them. Extending the vote to 16-year olds is not unfeasible as the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 lowered the voting age. It was found that among the population of 16-17-year olds, 75% voted (European Commission, 2019). This further disproves that children do not have an interest in politics and want to be politically active, as the Scottish independence, just like the EU referendum, would have been a matter that affected their lives. Armstrong (2017) argues that the Scottish referendum was a significant achievement in allowing those affected to participate in the decision and have their voice heard. He provides a counter-argument that ‘more cynical observers’ thought that this age cohort was included as a tactic to increase the independence vote. This insinuates that the younger generation wanted independence, whether it was a tactic or not; if this is the outcome that they want from the referendum, they have the right to vote for it.

Furthermore, research has increasingly found that 16-17-year-olds would have overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU (Ali, 2016; ARK, 2016, 2018). Therefore, this could have swung the vote, with the outcome being that the UK would remain in the EU. Having already assessed in the first section of this essay how Brexit will negatively impact children, this demonstrates how their lack of a vote was more than symbolic as the outcome of the referendum may have long-lasting consequences that go against their will.

Protesting & Proxy Voting  

However, although children do not have the right to vote, they do have the right to peacefully protest (Legislation.co.uk, 2019). Madestam et al. (2013) argued that protests could have a major effect on politics to encourage people to be politically active. Therefore, through this medium, children could have had their voice heard and express their views as provided for under the UNCRC. We can see the effectiveness of children protesting most recently in the news with the school climate change strikes that took place, influenced by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg (Carrington, 2019). However, protesting does not carry the same political weight as being able to vote. Lopez-Guerra (2012:21) argues a person ought to have the right to vote if she has this capacity to the minimum degree required for voting – that is, to the extent where she can understand what an election is about and complain about not being allowed to participate. Therefore, this point could argue that if children have the capacity and can understand the issue enough to protest, they can make an informed vote on the matter.

Many have argued that the older generation betrayed the younger generation (Brandle et al., 2018). Therefore, Wolf et al. (2015) argue that allowing children the right to vote can achieve ‘intergenerational justice’ and alleviate problems arising between those children outside the electorate and adults inside the electorate. However, they argue that this is done by allowing children a proxy vote. This means children would receive the right to vote like any other citizen; however, it is the parents of the child who would execute that vote. However, critics of this (Rehfield, 2011) argue that it does not enhance the political rights of children as it simply shifts the representation of children from the government to their guardians and therefore does not promote the political participation of children.

Conclusion

This essay has concluded that Brexit will affect children in their prospects in education, employment, and health due to the loss of EU funding. Hence, as stated under the UNCRC, children should have expressed their views on the matter and have them taken seriously. Although they could express their views through means such as protesting,  if they have the capacity to protest, they can vote. Further, there are inconsistencies in how children are viewed in different contexts as they are criminally responsible at ten and viewed as adults at 16; however, they cannot vote until 18. Therefore, as they did not avail of this right to vote, they essentially had no say in a matter that would affect them, and hence the Brexit process was in breach of children’s rights.

References

Armstrong, K. (2017) Brexit time: leaving the EU – why, how and when?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bolton, P. (2019) Higher education student numbers, Online: House of Commons Library.

Brandle, V., Galpin, C. and Trenz, H. (2018) ‘Marching for Europe? Enacting European citizenship as justice during Brexit.’ Citizenship Studies, 22 (8), pp. 810-828.

Carrington, D. (2019) ‘School climate strikes: 1.4 million people took part, say campaigners’, The Guardian, 19th March, Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/19/school-climate-strikes-more-than-1-million-took-part-say-campaigners-greta-thunberg. (Accessed 01/12/19).

Chan, T. W. and Clayton, M. (2006) ‘Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to Sixteen? Normative and Empirical Considerations’, Political Studies, 54(3), pp. 533-558.

Cerulus, L. (2020) ‘Ireland to fund Erasmus scheme for Northern Irish students’, Politico, 27^th December. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-fund-erasmus-northern-irish-students/. (Accessed 04/03/21). 

Child Rights International Network (2018) What Lies Beneath, Online: Child Rights International Network, Available at: https://archive.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_report_2018_edition.pdf. (Accessed: 29^th October 2019).

Cockburn, T. (2013) Rethinking children’s citizenship, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Electoral Commission (2019) Introduction to a referendum, Available at: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/intro-ris-referendum.pdf.  (Accessed: 26th November 2019).

Electoral Commission (2019) Results and turnout at the EU referendum, Available at: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum.  (Accessed: 24th November 2019).

Ellison, M. (2017) ‘Through the Looking Glass: Young People, Work and the Transition between Education and Employment in a post-Brexit UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 46(4), pp. 675-698.

European Commission (2019) Youth participation in representative democracy, Available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/en/content/youthwiki/52-youth-participation-representative-democracy-united-kingdom-scotland.  (Accessed: 24th November 2019).

Frick, S. (2011) Children’s rights: Experienced and claimed, Berlin: Lit verlag.

Full Fact (2018) How sweet is sixteen? Legal age limits in England and Wales, Available at: https://fullfact.org/law/legal-age-limits/. (Accessed: 4th December 2019).

Gov.UK (2019) Types of election, referendums, and who can vote, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/elections-in-the-uk.  (Accessed: 18th November 2019).

Gov.UK (2019) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): how legislation underpins implementation in England, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-uncrc-how-legislation-underpins-implementation-in-england.  (Accessed: 5th December 2019).

Iacobucci, G. (2019) ‘Poverty, public health cuts, and Brexit risk halting progress on child health, college warns.’, BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 364, pp. I325.

Legislation.gov.uk (2019) Human Rights Act 1998, Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/10. (Accessed: 28th November 2019).

López-Guerra, C. (2012) ‘Enfranchising Minors and the Mentally Impaired’, Social Theory and Practice, 38(1), pp. 115-138.

Madestam, A., Shoag, D., Veuger, S. and Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2013) ‘Do Political Protests Matter? Evidence from the Tea Party Movement’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(4), pp. 1633–1685.

Martin, C. (2018) ‘Should Deliberative Democratic Inclusion Extend to Children?’, Democracy & Education, 26(2), pp. 1-11.

Mori Social Research Institute (2003) Young People’s Attitudes Towards Politics, Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/migrations/enuk/files/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/nfm16.pdf.  (Accessed: 27th November 2019).

Morphet, J. (2017) ‘Beyond Brexit, what will be lost?’, in Morphet, J. (ed.) Beyond Brexit?: how to assess the UK’s future. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 113-133.

OHCHR (2020) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (Accessed: 10th October 2020).

Rawl, J. (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement, London: Belknap.

Rehfield, A. (2011) ‘The Child as Democratic Citizen’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633(1), pp. 141-66.

Wolf, S., Goldschmidt, N. and Petersen, T. (2015) ‘Votes on behalf of children: a legitimate way of giving them a voice in politics?’, Constitutional Political Economy, 26(3), pp. 356-74.