Because it's been decided for them they can't 
And that's why they shouldn't have the vote  they can't vote to make recreational drugs and 1300cc motorbikes available to 16 year olds.
Same as 8 year olds, 12 year olds etc.
They can join the army at 16 and possibly defend the country with their lives, so why not be given the vote ? It's a moot point as the deputy speaker hasn't selected that amendment by the looks of it.
Professor Curtice has made an interesting set of predictions -
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189177374778232833
Off table now anyway. 9th only ammendment selected.
Not true, they aren't allowed to fight until they are 18
If you think about it 16 year olds who aren't bothered or interested will just carry on with their lives as normal on election day. Those who are interested though will take their opportunity. They shouldn't be deprived of the chance just because they've been generalised as not being mature enough.
At 18 there's also plenty who aren't interested and don't vote either. And certainly some who aren't mature enough either.
There has to be a cut off and it should be 16. Thought that long before Brexit came along as well. So that's not an influence.
Understand your thinking but I'm in agreement with over 90% of other countries at 18
Revisit it over the coming years.
Not for you, perhaps, but if we are planning an election for less than 2 months away, why try and introduce it now?It's a cynical attempt to either delay the election or to pull on board a demographic likely to vote on the side of the proposer
Outdated for me. But yeah definitely needs a revisit for the next election imo.