Hello BalaJohnes,
Thank you for your response.
This weekend talking to some ex-work colleagues from Belgium and France they didn’t view the UK as a particularly good, compliant member of the EU e.g. why was the UK’s Prime Minister (PM) insisting on being present at the “save the euro” talks last week despite not even being a member of the Eurozone? The UK is still rather an independent nation state with the majority of the population when polled these days, given the problems with the Euro, the European Human Rights act not letting us deport failed asylem seekers etc., wanting the government to renegotiate EU membership terms or get out. Getting back to the presence of the PM, the UK is distrustful of the Oligarchy you refer to and particularly France and Germany based on past experience. The most recent and celebrated case when President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel got together was to come up with the idea of a Tobin tax on financial transactions within the EU of which, given the dominent position of the City of London in the European financial markets, would have resulted in 90% of the tax hitting the UK and also reducing the competitiveness of the City of London globally! The general feeling is that although we had no vote over the Euro, through luck or judgement on the part of our political masters, we are probably better off outside the Eurozone than in, given its current problems. Who knows what might happen in the future but the UK seems to be moving towards a national referendum approach to future changes of our relationship with the EU.
I’m British and retired in France but not disillusioned and think it’s still worth having the right to vote in a UK still rather independent within the EU.
Rod
There are a number of reasons why around only 30,000 expat Brits out of an estimated 5 - 6 million were registered to vote at the last general election:
1. A general distrust of the UK off-shore tax implications for an expatriate of registering to vote, since they think this might also be brought to the attention of HMRC.
2. Difficulties of dealing with a rather out-dated way of registering and then voting given the more modern means of communications available today e.g. with the internet.
3. A mutual lack of interest by both the expatriate who for various reasons has left the UK behind, and political parties who give the impression of only showing interest in those able to vote at election time.
4. A rejection of politics and politicians in general, which matches a certain anti-politics mood in the UK today.
5. The 15 year rule.
Concerning reason 1 above, it’s interesting that the letter from the Cabinet Office in the earlier posting above drew a distinction between paying taxes and having the right to vote.
On the use of on-line voting as mentioned in 2 above, proponents in the US argue that Internet voting would offer greater speed and convenience, particularly for overseas and military voters and, in fact, any voters allowed to vote that way. If it’s safe to bank or shop on-line, why not vote on-line?
The answer is that it is not inherently safe to e.g. bank or shop on-line and computer and network security experts are virtually unanimous in pointing out that online voting is an exceedingly dangerous threat to the integrity of U.S. elections.
However, if we are prepared to accept the security risk to our finances for the convenience of shopping or banking on-line, perhaps we are also prepared to accept the same level of risk for the convenience as expatriates of voting on-line?
It’s interesting that the final report below identifies the inadequacies of the postal vote (which particularly impacts expats).
The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has reported on the 4th November 2011 , on the subject of Individual Electoral Registration ( the latter in fact which already applies to expatriate voting) within the UK.
It is significant, therefore, that there are two references to overseas voters in the report. The first mentions the inadequacies of the postal vote. The second ( pp. 99) states: The Committee also received written evidence from a number of expatriates calling for the Government to abolish the current 15 year limit on voting in General Elections when living overseas. Mark Harper responded that it was ?something that Government is considering at the moment, but we have not reached a decision?.
Continuing the discussion, what’s the general feeling about the practical case below of expat Brit James Preston who lives in Spain?
James Preston?s expat voting rights case against the British government was heard in the High Court in London two days ago on the 8th November (final judgement awaited). According to an article in the expat Telegraph which first covered his case in 2010 (before the last general election):
?James Preston is a brave man. Rather like David goading Goliath, he has decided to take on the full might of the British government by applying for a judicial review of the expatriate voting rights law. The curious thing about James Preston, a married fund manager from Leicestershire working for a property investment firm based in Madrid, is that he?s never voted in his life. He told me: ?I know this might sound odd, but until I got married and had children, I really never felt the need to vote. It was my strong feelings about the Iraq war that persuaded me to think about voting in the forthcoming UK elections but now that I?ve reached the 15 year watershed of living in Spain, I?ve lost the chance. I?m basically being stripped of a fundamental democratic right. The right to vote.?
Due to the wider implications of this case, James Preston?s costs should he lose have been capped by the court at ?20,000.
No-one biting Rod so I guess it’s just thee ‘n me… so just to keep it going…
James Preston’s case is interesting if only from the standpoint that he is paying taxes to the UK. If this is the case then of course he should have the right to have a say in how it is spent; not that any of us UK taxpayers do… I don’t honestly think however that he will ultimately win his case.
Our politicians are the same as politicians worldwide, arrogant, self aggrandising and once in power in the UK too afraid of the punishments for going against the will of the party whips.as witness the recent referendum vote in the Commons; yes there were some rebels but at the end of the day it’s always the same; Bugger the people its the party that counts…
In your post dated 2nd Nov you said;
There are a number of reasons why around only 30,000 expat Brits out of an estimated 5 - 6 million were registered to vote at the last general election:
1. A general distrust of the UK off-shore tax implications for an expatriate of registering to vote, since they think this might also be brought to the attention of HMRC.
2. Difficulties of dealing with a rather out-dated way of registering and then voting given the more modern means of communications available today e.g. with the internet.
3. A mutual lack of interest by both the expatriate who for various reasons has left the UK behind, and political parties who give the impression of only showing interest in those able to vote at election time.
4. A rejection of politics and politicians in general, which matches a certain anti-politics mood in the UK today.
5. The 15 year rule.
Under heading
1) I too pay taxes to the UK so I’m not all that concerned about HMRC.
2) I wouldn’t trust the internet for voting; period; just too open to being messed with!
3) That would be me… I’m not in the least bit interested in their shenanigans except when I read of some of the financial misdoings of those in power, no matter what colour tie they may wear. Interestingly enough, in most interviews during his time in power Tony Blair used to wear a Blue tie… not too subtle!
4) That is definitely me!
5) Unaffected and probably too old and senile by the time it will apply to me. I’ll be quite happy to remember my own name by the time that rule would apply to me!
My feelings can be summed up in one word… Disillusioned.
Hello Foxbat,
Many thanks again for keeping this thread going. I must admit that I did have you in mind with some of those reasons I listed for not voting!
I don’t know James Preston’s political affiliations although I met him recently in Paris but he might well also sport a blue tie on occasions. Therefore, to maintain a broad front we do have old soldier Harry Shindler still campaigning from his home in Italy and with possibly a red tie or two in his bottom draw!
When I post again it could be to give a bit more promotion to Harry, who has still to be informed (probably by year end he thinks) of the results of his voting rights challenge via the European Court of Human Rights.
Rod
I never get time to reply to this thread. I’m sorry, I still think that it is reasonable to lose voting rights after a certain period outside the UK. More than reasonable, it seems logical to me. Where do you draw the line? Children of British expats? Grandchildren? I still keep returning to the Irish diaspora or more close to home here in Spain, the Galician diaspora. How can it be reasonable that more than 30% of the vote can be made from abroad. Here’s the situation in Galicia in local and regional elections, when election time comes around, there’s all the pliticians up and go to South America to drum up votes many of the voters there have no links with Galicia except a grandparent. Luckily, no all those eligible to vote do vote, if they did, then there would be around 45% of the vote decided by people living outside of Spain. How many Irish or Irish descendants are there living outside Ireland? I’d guess that there are as many outside than in. What happens when the majority of the vote is decided by people who don’t live in the country?
My opinion is that for whatever reason, we have all decided to leave the UK, even if we still pay into the system (or take out from the system). It seems logical to me that when I left I would lose certain rights. OK I can’t vote here in Spanish national elections until I gain Spanish citizenship - the same as foreign nationals in the UK, but I can apply for citizenship after 10 years - or two if I marry a Spaniard, and then I can vote here. If I really was inclined, I wouldn’t have been without the right to vote somewhere.
OK, here in Spain there is a problem, which is that the Spanish do not recognize dual citizenship for EU residents, so that EU citizens have to renounce their original citizenship to be able to vote in either regional or national elections. UK citizenship can be regained afterwards, but it’s a costly affair all round, I’ve no idea what the situation is for the others. At least for european countries, I think there has been an oversight in the area of citizenship and voting rights for those exercising their treaty rights. I would have thought that a rule such as 10 years resident in a member state should be sufficient for voting rights at national level - either by right as a permanent resident or by the option of dual nationality.
My gripe with Spain is that they don’t offer the same dual nationality or fast-tracking that they do to South Americans, or Filipinos. The constitution allows this specifically for these countries, but goes further with the phrase ” or other such coutries with close ties”, I would have thought that the EU could be considered an area with close ties to Spain, no? Something for Spain and the EU to sort out.
Meanwhile, back to the UK, I would have thought that expat lobby groups would be the best way to influence government, more influential, probably, than having the vote personally.
I wish you well with your campaign, but I have to say that it’s not something that I particularly support.
Hello RiazorBlue,
Thanks for your input which in fact adds another reason to my list for expat Brits not voting i.e. in your opinion, even if you had the right to vote, you would choose not to exercise it after a certain period away, and I have no problem with that.
However, I’ll try to answer a number of interesting points you have raised.
RiazorBlue - 12 November 2011 04:46 PM
.
Where do you draw the line? Children of British expats? Grandchildren?
In fact if the British passport holding expat parents were not born in the UK, their offspring have no automatic right to a British passport and the mother (if not born in the UK) should ensure she gives birth in the UK to maintain the right to a British passort for her child. If you have a British passport you should maintain the same rights as other such expat Brits.
I still keep returning to the Irish diaspora or more close to home here in Spain, the Galician diaspora. What happens when the majority of the vote is decided by people who don’t live in the country?
The Irish expats are also campaigning for the right to vote and I’ve seen one estimate that they could represent 25% of the total population of the Irish Republic. The way the French treat their expats is then a possible solution in that they set aside a limited number of elected expat constituencies (Senators) in their upper House (Senate) to address the different concerns of their expats and not destabilise the vote in the lower House( equivalent to our Commons). In the UK at the moment they are redrawing the constituency boundaries and continue to tinker with the elected composition of the Upper House(of Lords) and so it is possible to accommodate the expatriate vote e.g. the French way.
At least for european countries, I think there has been an oversight in the area of citizenship and voting rights for those exercising their treaty rights. I would have thought that a rule such as 10 years resident in a member state should be sufficient for voting rights at national level - either by right as a permanent resident or by the option of dual nationality.
I agree with you that there should be a solution at EU level but with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal… already catering for their expats voting rights, this is not likely to happen soon. By the way, the UK is as guilty as Spain in allowing citizens of other countries with historical links to vote e.g. Irish and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK can vote in UK general elections!
Meanwhile, back to the UK, I would have thought that expat lobby groups would be the best way to influence government, more influential, probably, than having the vote personally.
The French solution takes care of this I think.
I wish you well with your campaign, but I have to say that it’s not something that I particularly support.
Many thanks. All contributions and opinions , whether for or against, are useful in guiding the campaign.
The main point made in the British government?s latest response to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the Harry Shindler challenge to the 15 year non-residence rule, which limits his voting rights as a long term expatriate in Italy, is that he has failed to exhaust his domestic remedies prior to submitting his application to the ECHR.
Such a remedy is demonstrated by the domestic case of James Preston in which he declares that the 15 year rule is unlawful and that his application to be registered as a voter should be reconsidered on the basis of that declaration.
The government argues that it is the case here that such an available claim under domestic law would provide a realistic basis for achieving the result which, it is claimed , the Human Rights Convention requires.
It is interesting that the above argument also reflects the government?s aim, during its current 6 months chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, for a legal reform which would stop the ECHR from overruling the decisions of British judges e.g. on individual immigration cases.
According to the UK?s Justice Secretary, the ECHR should concentrate instead on more serious issues of principle concerning a member state, or its courts, or its parliament, which arguably breach the European Human Rights Convention and require an international court.
This is turning into a bit of an intellectual exercise now that the lawyers are involved!
This is turning into a bit of an intellectual exercise now that the lawyers are involved!
Rod
Still, politicians are notoriously sensitive to storms in the media and in a recent listing of potent UK symbols, the armed forces were high rated in the public’s esteem. Therefore, the British government should beware of upsetting the media with its lawyers’ treatment of old soldier Harry Shindler’s voting rights claim, as covered in this new Telegraph article below. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/8914991/Expats-denounce-Government-over-voting-rights.html
If the 8-9 December eurozone agreement secured in Brussels with the UK isolated leads to an “out” vote in a subsequent “in/out” referendum on continuing EU membership, this could cause problems in the future for expat British residents, who under EU treaties currently receive the equivalent healthcare, social security benefits and/or state pension (e.g. not frozen) as if they were still living in the UK. This would be particularly the case for a pensioner who has never subscribed to the social care provisions of his/her resident EU member state.
If such a referendum was held, shouldn’t the law allow all those British expats impacted to be able to vote in it, and not just those who have been expats for 15 years or less?
Rod
The free movement of goods, services and citizens of member states is guaranteed by treaty within the European Union (EU). It’s interesting then that the high court judgement in London recently went against James Preston in his expatriate voting rights case against the British government.
The judges decided that his disenfranchisement after 15 years does not constitute a deterrence to his free movement within the EU. http://votes4xpatbritsblog.wordpress.com/
As mentioned before, the UK is currently chairing the European Council which also oversees the European Court of Human Rights (and is actually not an EU court). The British government (together now with Switzerland) is also minded to reform the way the ECHR operates, being more than irritated it seems by e.g. the court’s contrary (to that of the British government’s view) ruling on prisoners’ voting rights, individual immigration cases etc. It thinks the court should concentrate instead on more major issues such as basic freedom and torture etc. There’s also now talk of a time-out option on long running cases to cut the backlog of some 150,000 cases. Following the initial James Preston setback, let’s hope the Harry Shindler case doesn’t become a casualty of this conflict. It seems perverse that the government wants the ECHR to concentrate on major issues but defends its own stance on voting rights by countering that the democratic right to universal suffrage (a major issue I would suggest) does not yet form part of the European electoral heritage (the latter ironically also as a result of a previous British government negotiation!).
