Lost Voting Rights

Quite honestly, I am in favour of losing voting rights in the UK. I do not live there so don't feel that I should impose my vote on those who do. Where I should have a vote though is in Spain where I live. In my opinion, this is where people should be campaigning, voting rights for EU citizens in their adoptive country.

That's a fair point when you maintain no personal links or otherwise with the UK and are basically domiciled in Spain for example. I presume you can already vote in local and European elections in Spain if you are a resident? A similar point made to me previously by an expat was that he was more interested in who was maintaining the local infrastructure and services where he lived than what was happening in the UK. In this case a local vote suited him without necessarily wanting to vote at national level.
With countries in the EU such as Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Germany already maintaining national voting rights for their own expats,however, I wonder what's so different about how the UK perceives/treats its own expats voting rights-wise when we all benefit from staying in touch through worldwide communications via the internet and 24/7 news channels? Whether these EU countries could ever agree the benefits of extending the national vote to residents of another EU nationality is a moot point, although to stabilise the Eurozone through some sort of fiscal convergence as has been suggested, to allow common taxpayer money to be dispensed to the poorer regions, could perhaps provide an impetus. This is a possible solution for Irish expatriates who represent an important % of the total Irish population and who, since they lose the right to vote as soon as they leave, are also campaigning for the right to vote with the UK 15 year rule suggested as one option!
Those expat Brits commenting on our website (votes-for-expat-brits.com) and voting in our on-line poll are variously citing their human right to vote somewhere in a democratic society, see a vote as at least another way of putting pressure on an MP to try and unfreeze their (non-indexed) pensions or protesting "No taxation without representation" since they are still paying UK taxes despite no longer having a right to vote. Another group of expat respondants includes ex-servicemen and women suggesting that the current UK government in depriving them of the right to vote, is also breaking the spirit of the military covenant (which it has recently put on a legal basis) between the country and those who have put themselves in harm's way in its defence.
The Algarve News has in fact a more detailed article on how expat Brits have no say in Europe (algarvedailynews.com/community-news/general/4906-expat-brits-have-no-say-in-europe).
Rod

I still think that an ex-pat should expect to come under jurisdiction of their host country, not from their country of origin. You mention Ireland, and here's a good example of why. How many Irish are there in their diaspora? I'd imagine that their are more people of Irish origin in the world than there are in Ireland. Imagine now that you gave them all a vote in their national elections. Those who live in Ireland would be a minority and would rightly complain about it. OK, so the UK is much larger and the ratio of ex-pats to resident Brits is far smaller, but the principal still exists.
I think that there needs to be an easy way for ex-pat europeans to gain a fast-track dual-nationality to allow them to be able to vote in their new country (like there is in Spain for their ex-colonies). Whilst I still follow British politics, and I have SERPs, I really don't think that after so much time out of the UK my opinion should be taken as equal as someone who lives there. Sorry, I just don't. My opinion should count where I live.

OK I'll bite...

Got to agree with Riazor on this...

We left the UK in 2006 and I have no intention of ever returning.

My vote in a UK election would make absolutely no difference anyway; once the votes are counted its a Politician who wins and the electorate that loses... every time. Why the hell anyone bothers to vote these days is a complete mystery to me... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

fb

if you level ireland , ie no address dont pay taxes , no vote ... post votes have been know to be missed placed and open ...

but have a kid in ireland and move you still get payed child payments abarod

live in uk get a vote live outside you dont get a vote .... so in spain we should have a vote

That's interesting feedback so far when the general consensus of those responding seems to be that once you've decided to leave the UK, cut off your links and take up residence elsewhere you'd prefer a vote where you now are, know what's going on and can maybe make a difference (or not) with a more informed vote.
Ireland is certainly a special case with estimates of up to a quarter of the population being expat, not counting those claiming Irish ancestry like my ex-boss, Irish American (with a father born in Ireland and Involved in the Easter uprising of 1916) and carrying both American and Irish passports. Unless handled carefully the expatriate vote could have a major influence on the final outcome, unless for example, as in France, a selected number of expatriate constituencies are defined to elect representatives of the expatriate community in the upper house (Senate). In the UK this would be equivalent to us expat Brits electing a number of members of the House of Lords!
Despite arguments against the 15 year rule, the UK is actually quite open to other nationalities voting in general elections e.g. Irish and Commonwealth citizens once resident can vote. Obviously with immigration having been so relatively high in recent years there is now also a significant part of the population from a different culture who can vote in UK general elections. I, therefore, put the question to a Scottish friend of mine now living in the South of France "What do you think of recent arrivals of a different culture and now having British nationality being able to vote in the UK but not us?". He replied, "that's fine by me. They are there and we have chosen to be here i.e. in France!". Another Scottish friend living in Paris like me has a French wife and dual nationality children but his economic/family centre of interest is in France and he has taken out French nationality. In my own case I spend 9 months in France or elsewhere and three months in the UK each year; our son, daughter and grandchildren are in London, we regularly travel between Paris and London on the Eurostar rail link and our income is roughly 50% in Euros and 50% in Pounds. I've also only yesterday (on another Forum) given the contact link (aboutmyvote.co.uk) to a British expat couple who have now retired in Spain but continue to pay taxes in the UK and wanted to know how they could still register to vote in the UK but as now expatriates.
In summary, there is no standard set of circumstances for expat Brits determining how they feel about losing their voting rights and your responses are much appreciated. Certainly, however, with some 6 million or so expat Brits around the world (10% of the population) and only some 30,000 registered to vote out of an estimated 3 million with less than 15 years away, the current almost archaic and difficult system of registering and voting could be vastly improved using more modern communication aids. It also seems odd that with general voter turnout at UK elections relatively low, those expatriates who still maintain an interest in their country of birth should be discouraged from voting by a rather arbitrary 15 year cut-off rule.
Rod

> That?s interesting feedback so far when the general consensus of those responding seems to be that once you?ve decided to leave the UK, cut off your links and take up residence elsewhere you?d prefer a vote where you now are, know what?s going on and can maybe make a difference (or not) with a more informed vote.


Absolutely right; not necessarily at a National level, but certainly at local and regional levels.
At national level the votes of a few ex-pats would make no difference to the overall result it would still be Tweedledum or Tweedledummer that gets into Government.

With each region of Spain having its own mini-parliament and each province making its own interpretation of the rules handed down from the regional government the system is wide open to corruption. Only at a municipal level can the peoples vote actually make a difference.

I wonder what percentage of expats in Spain that have actually moved here since 2004 have done so to escape from the shenanigans of the UK government. It was certainly a major contributory factor in our decision to pack up and leave. In our case it happened two years earlier than planned when I was made redundant at age 62. Having had only three jobs since leaving school my experience was in a very restricted field of engineering. Having been made redundant, I staggered from interview to interview and was turned down on each occasion; I know it was age related despite the UK Laws on ageism.

I didn't qualify for Jobseeker's Allowance because I had three pensions payable from age 60 that together took me above (but only just) the cut-off level of ?8000p.a. The job centre told me I didnt qualify for anything... no support... nada! Out of that ?8000 I was expected to pay my mortgage which at the time was around ?5200 p.a. which left me with just 3000 pa to live on...

I eventually took a job driving buses at ?7.90 per hour. I very quickly decided this was a mugs game; all around me my colleagues were being mugged, robbed, spat at, and assaulted and our vehicles were regular moving targets for vandals. After 6 months I gave up, commuted a figure from each of my pensions, added that to the redundancy money and got the hell out of Dodge. I sold the house for much less than its market value making just enough to pay off the mortgage and a few other bills, and leaving enough to buy a wreck of a tenny-weeny village house over here.

Little wonder then that I have no time for the UK Parliamentary system, since Thatcher the UK hasn't had a government per se but a dictatorship run by a series of arrogant despots that have no interest in what the electorate thinks. Protests are generally either ignored completely or put down violently. Ian Tomlinson and Jean Paul Menenzes are two instances of the levels to which UK politics and policing have sought to control the movements of everyone.

A very close relative, a single mum (through no fault of her own), wanted to obtain a passport to come visit us here in Spain after my wife had an accident which led to her being incapacited for a while. She was advised by the Job Centre and UK Passport Office that because she is in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support, it is doubtful that she would pass the now mandatory qualifying interview that all prospective UK passport holders must attend.

What kind of country has the UK become? The UK Passport on its inside front cover includes this statement...

"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

It seems that in the UK a person born in the country to ancestors all of whom were born in the UK no longer has a right to a passport. So I ask again...What kind of country has the UK become, when the Her Majesty's Secretary of State is in breach of his own rulings?

I for one, will not be returning to a country where my vote counts for nothing.

fb

> [quote]
What kind of country has the UK become? The UK Passport on its inside front cover includes this statement...

"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

It seems that in the UK a person born in the country to ancestors all of whom were born in the UK no longer has a right to a passport. So I ask again...What kind of country has the UK become, when the Her Majesty's Secretary of State is in breach of his own rulings?

I for one, will not be returning to a country where my vote counts for nothing.

fb

Thanks Foxbat for your insight concerning the internal politics of the voting system in Spain and also your personal experiences causing you to finally uproot and move to Spain for a better life.
I was particularly taken with your question "What kind of country has the UK become?" which addresses also the so-called multi-cultural society the UK is said to have become and which (possibly like yourself) I find myself increasingly alienated from even when regularly visiting. Our French friends think we Brits are sleepwalking into a future disaster given the seemingly casual way (compared with France say) we protect our own culture, almost bending over backwards to accomodate cultures other than our own and not encouraging more integration around a common set of traditional British values.
The politicians should be more concerned that so many typical Brits such as yourself have turned their backs on the UK. You referred to Mrs Thatcher and indeed it's difficult to find somebody of her calibre around today to inspire again someone like yourself to vote (given the opportunity) in a UK general election, a plus being your experience of how things are done elsewhere e.g. in Spain. Of course, the UK you and I know, with devolution and the push for independance in Scotland, could be in the process of breaking up into England, Scotland and maybe Wales longer term, with Northern Ireland most likely also finally rejoining the Irish Republic. We'd end up being kicked like a football (or several footballs) between Germany and France within the European Union!
However, I must confess I haven't given up on the UK yet and would welcome an initiative from the government demonstrating that they value the contribution of its important expatriate diaspora.
Rod

O.H. is over in England at the moment; she was one of those affected by the decision to shift the retirement age for women, so instead of receiving her pension in March of this year she has to wait until next March. She is a highly experienced highly qualified Uni lecturer but has found it impossible to find even temporary or part time work that befits her qualifications.

They say that two can live as cheaply as one but this requires that both parties occupy the same space at the same time. To this end, she went looking for a job in order to support herself during her visit.

Firstly she was told by the Job Centre that she qualified for Pensions credit... but...not so... strangely enough in order to qualify for this she actually has to be drawing a pension!

Secondly she was told by the same people that she would qualify for a Bus Pass.. not an insignificant asset given the price of getting around in the UK today. Again...Porkies! When the government changed the date of pension entitlement for women they also gave local government a reason NOT to issue said Bus Pass; qualification for this now coincides with Pension entitlement.

She was eventually accepted onto the Jobseeker's register and so qualified for the princely sum of ?67.50 per week... She is supposed to LIVE on this?

For reasons best known to the Civil Service they managed to completely screw up the weekly payments, delaying the first (and subsequent) payments by a month.

After a couple of interviews she was finally accepted for work in a call centre at ?8.10 per hour and guess what... a good 75% of her fellow employees are uni. graduates some of whom she lectured years ago.

She is hating every minute of her time over there and can't wait to get back but has strong personal and family reasons for staying in the UK for at least another month so she can't come home yet.

This is why we feel so let down by the UK...

fb

Hello Foxbat,
I'm sorry to hear that your other half has been one of the many unlucky women affected by the increase in the retirement age, the latter one of the measures taken to try and restore the nation's finances within the foreseeable future. Obviously given the current financial crisis it's also then the worst of times to be forced into trying to find a job in order to survive. She is one of those unfortunate enough to be caught in that squeezed middle (as Labour terms it) of well educated people who are losing out. They are caught between those on low incomes who seem cushioned well enough by the benefits system and those with high enough incomes to be relatively unaffected by the downturn.The problem is that the welfare benefits system has been too generous to those at the low income end, the tax system then ensuring it more attractive to remain on benefits rather than to get up in the mornings and go to work. This has soaked up money which could perhaps have been better spent elsewhere. However, there need to be jobs available to go to if you come off benefits and a lot of the lower skilled ones have gone with the reduced manufacturing base in the UK and the growth of countries such as China and India. Your other half has shown the flexibility to find work but obviously pay-wise not that matching her education and experience. It's even worse for the newly qualified graduates so full of hope and then having to take whatever they can to demonstrate some sort of work experience for when the economy begins to grow again. I assume the jobs situation in Spain is similar for young people?
The Eurozone countries seem to have come up with a solution satisfying the financial markets with a plan agreed with the banks to take a 50% haircut as the Americans say, to allow the Greeks to default on their debt. So perhaps we can start looking forwards to some growth in the European and US economies, together with an associated growth in job prospects and confidence in the future.
Rod

Rod Hi...

Don't take me too seriously; my wife calls me Victor sometimes when I get a bit of a rant on; these are just the ramblings of someone watching the world go to ratsh*t whilst the politicians sit back like Nero polishing their respective (and normally) very lucrative fiddles.

Should I post this... aah... why not; it's only the view of one somewhat disgruntled pensioner!

OK, a few observations;

from your earlier post...


> You referred to Mrs Thatcher and indeed it?s difficult to find somebody of her calibre around today to inspire again someone like yourself to vote


Some would say thank god for that after her declaration of war on Argentina in 1982 over a worthless heap of rocks in the South Atlantic. If the Argentinians want the Falklands back let them have them. They are a constant drain on our resources which we can ill afford and since when have the feelings of a few hundred people had any effect on UK politicians? Truth is both Thatcher and Galtieri needed a war to boost their standing with their respective electorates. Sad thing is that in Thatchers case it actually worked... misusing that new found popularity she then proceeded to dismantle the UK union movement and just about killed UK industry. Her successors both Red and Blue have done nothing to reverse the situation.

and from your last post...


> ... one of the measures taken to try and restore the nation?s finances within the foreseeable future.


... Thereby hitting hardest those women who have produced the current generation of workers and were, for the most part, looking forward to retirement!


> The problem is that the welfare benefits system has been too generous to those at the low income end, the tax system then ensuring it more attractive to remain on benefits rather than to get up in the mornings and go to work.


I have to take issue with you on that point too; from my own personal experience when made redundant; As I said I was expected to pay my mortgage and survive on ?8200 pa when my mortgage alone amounted to ?5200. Welfare and Benefits ...nada... zilch. Job expectations virtually NIL apart from shelf stacking at Tesco or B&Q at ?5 per hour or driving a bus...


> However, there need to be jobs available to go to if you come off benefits and a lot of the lower skilled ones have gone with the reduced manufacturing base in the UK and the growth of countries such as China and India.


Not just the lower skilled jobs, it's skilled jobs at all levels; Thatcher et al screwed up the British manufacturing base permanently; there is no way that Britain can ever recover its manufacturing capability. We are what we are now, a country dependent upon service industries. Interesting too that you mention India; pray tell WHY are we sending vast amounts of foreign aid to India. If they have enough going for them to advance their manufacturing capability at the exponential rate at which it is growing (to the detriment of our own remaining limited industries) and to support a nuclear arms industry just why the hell are we funding them?

[
> It?s even worse for the newly qualified graduates so full of hope and then having to take whatever they can to demonstrate some sort of work experience for when the economy begins to grow again.


Which is why so many wind up working in call centres or driving Garbage trucks or buses.

Admission to University these days is just another means of massaging statistics for HMG; it keeps people off the unemployment register, it also puts them into serious financial hock so they are forever indebted to the Banks and HMG.

However if its just about balancing the books... There are several ways in which the UK government could save money;

Cut Foreign Aid except to countries that really need it.

We should cease forthwith foreign military adventures. Iraq, Afghanistan and more latterly Libya to name but three; all are vastly expensive and we simply cannot pretend we are the world power that we once were.

The Strategic Defence cuts made under Cameron's government have reduced the RAF to little more than a U.K. Self Defence Force, we have no maritime surveillance capability, no aircraft carriers and only a handful of destroyers and frigates left. Harriers and Sea Harriers scrapped, Nimrod 4 scrapped even after 4 aircraft had been produced at a cost of God knows how many millions of pounds were spent on their development. And just to make sure that they could not be mothballed and brought into service at a later date all 4 airframes were broken up and crushed beyond recognition. The Armed Forces are desperately short of personal equipment but by God we can afford god knows how many millions of pounds per week on bombs and missiles for use in theatres where morally we have absolutely no right to be.

The biggest saving could be made by scrapping plans for Trident 2; simply put, does it really matter if your gazillion megaton nuclear warhead misses it's intended target by a half a mile? New missiles mean new subs, means more money flooding out of the coffers. In any case can we honestly justify continuing as a Nuclear Power? We simply cannot afford it. Supporting the puppet masters in Washington doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

And Finally...


> I assume the jobs situation in Spain is similar for young people?


If anything its much worse; unemployment in the 18-25 year age group is currently 42%

They haven't as yet adopted the UK habit of taking 'Maccy-D' rejects and 'training' them as Airport Security staff... Give them time though, especially if Rajoy and the PP wind up in power.

Like I said... Don't take me too seriously; I'm just rambling. Plus I need to be doing something amusing (some might sat stirring the pot!) whilst waiting for the next session of walkies around the village with my pack of 9 abandoned dogs and it's raining...

fb

Hello Foxbat,
I thought that if I kept plugging away you might relent!
You are much better placed from personal experience to comment on the welfare benefits system and I have no problem with you taking issue with me on that. However, it was recently the 70th anniversary of Beveridge's founding of the original welfare state and commentaters were wondering what he would have thought of the unforeseen consequences of some families with successive generations exploiting it so that no one had a memory of actually working. I hasten to add that your case is completely different in wanting to work and the system not able to provide sufficient means to support you in your search for new employment.
I agree that the UK could free up a lot more money for the public finances if today's politicians accepted that foreign policy should reflect the UK's reduced stature globally. However, foreign adventures allow prime ministers to avoid facing/solving those more difficult problems at home.
Whether the UK could have maintained its manufacturing base given the increased competition from lower cost countries such as China and India (like you I don't quite follow why we still provide aid unless it's also tied to our exports) is an interesting point. Germany is a good example of what is possible particularly with their middle-sized manufacturing companies which are key to their export success. Thanks to their employers, unions and government working together e.g. to pay for part-time working during the economic downturn, job and the associated skill losses were minimised and Germany has emerged more competitive price/quality-wise than the more profligate Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. It is note worthy that Germany did not join the Libya adventure, preferring to concentrate instead e.g. on solving its growth problems through increased exports. The unions have representatives at supervisory board level in German companies, something which seems inconceivable in the UK. Is it a question of better education I wonder or to do with their social democratic model for society?
Many thanks for your response which got me thinking that it would be quite an achievement to interest you in voting in a UK election, given the chance!
Rod

Rod...

This thread has drifted a long way off topic and that's down to me I know. My apologies for hijacking it to rant on about personal experiences with the system.


> Many thanks for your response which got me thinking that it would be quite an achievement to interest you in voting in a UK election, given the chance!


Would probably qualify you for one of those Lifetime Achievement Awards as I firmly subscribe to the view that

"Politicians are like seagulls. They arrive from out of nowhere in a fluster, squawking, sticking their beaks in.... crapping all over everything and then flying off leaving a mess."

"Politicians are like nappies / daipers...They should be changed frequently, and for the same reason."

and that of Billy Connolly who said: 'Anyone who wants to be a politician should be automatically barred from being one.'

On that note I will shut up and withdraw!

Seriously Good Luck to you and your organisation, I wish you well.

fb

Hello Foxbat,
I don't mind wandering off topic as long as people keep having a look at this thread - it helps to promote the campaign, the more eye balls we can draw in.
Many thanks for your contribution. I hope others will also now chip in with their views.
Kind regards,
Rod

Perhaps we are making some progess? The response below from the Constitution Group in the Cabinet Office, places voteless British Citizens overseas but still paying UK tax, in the same category as some foreign nationals living and paying tax in the UK and who are also not eligible to vote!

Thank you for your response to the Government?s consultation on Individual Electoral Registration. We have now closed the consultation and are currently reviewing all the responses that we have received. In your response to the white paper you have raised issues regarding the voting rights of British Citizens overseas. In light of your comments, it may be helpful if I set out the background to this issue.

As you may know, the Representation of the People Act 1985 provided for the first time for UK citizens living overseas to be able to register to vote in general and European Parliamentary elections in the UK. The voting rights of overseas electors did not continue indefinitely under the Representation of the People Act 1985, but for five years from the time when the UK citizen was last resident and on the electoral register in the UK. Parliament decided to impose a time limit on the eligibility of overseas electors to vote because it was thought that generally over time their connection with the UK is likely to diminish. The length of the time limit has subsequently been changed over the years, first increasing to 20 years, then being reduced to 15 years since 1 April 2002.

The UK voting franchise is not based exclusively on being a UK tax payer, so it does not necessarily follow that, because someone pays taxes in the UK, he or she has the right to vote in the UK. Some foreign nationals living and paying tax in the UK are not eligible to vote.
However, I can confirm that the Government is considering whether the 15 year time limit remains appropriate. If a change is proposed Parliament will need to consider the issue.

We will publish a formal response to the consultation in due course.

Regards,

The Electoral Registration Transformation Programme

Constitution Group, the Cabinet Office

4S2 | HM Treasury | 1 Horse
Guards Rd | Westminster | London | SW1A 2HQ

Rod

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?

Rod

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?.

Rod

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.

You can read more here:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/annanicholas/10138095/should-expats-have-the-right-to-vote/

http://www.votes-for-expat-brits.com

Rod

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.

fb

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.


> .
[quote]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.
[/quote]

Many thanks. All contributions and opinions , whether for or against, are useful in guiding the campaign.

Rod

I see that Round Town News in Spain has picked up the James Preston expatriate voting rights challenge.

REMEMBER THE name James Preston, because it is highly likely that this ... that I've reached the 15-year watershed of living in Spain, I've lost the chance. ...
http://www.roundtownnews.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31680&Itemid=31

Rod

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!

Rod

> 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

Rod

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!).

Rod