When we vote in the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, it is important to understand that we will deciding on our citizenship. Currently, all holders of full UK passports are legally defined as EU citizens and if we leave, we will collectively be renouncing this citizenship and many of the associated rights, even if we manage to negotiate a Norway-style relationship within the wider European Economic Area.
The government’s decision on who will have the franchise in the referendum should be viewed in this context.
All Irish and Commonwealth nationals living legally in the UK will get a vote. The Guardian tells us there are 3.4 million people from 47 countries in this category which is certainly enough to influence the result. They include EU nationals from Cyprus and Malta by virtue of their countries’ Commonwealth membership.
The list of non-EU nationals who will be able to vote in the referendum, if my reading of the Electoral Commission website is correct, includes people from Mozambique and Cameroon (with closer historic links to Portugal and France respectively) as well as from Zimbabwe and Fiji, countries that are currently suspended from the Commonwealth.
However, 1.8 million fellow EU citizens from 24 countries will not be allowed to cast a ballot. They include nationals of Belgium, for whom we went to war a hundred years ago, and Portugal which has been our ally for centuries.
In deciding who should get to vote in the EU referendum, it strikes me that there are two intellectually coherent positions:
– The nationalist one involves limiting the franchise to full UK citizens. The rationale would be that people whose citizenship is not affected by the outcome of the referendum should not be allowed to influence it, even if they are affected by the outcome in other ways. It may be an ungenerous position, but it is has a certain logic.
– The liberal approach, which I prefer, reflects what happened in the Scottish referendum. Commonwealth and non-British EU nationals, as well as English, Welsh and Northern Irish people living in Scotland, were all allowed to take part, on the grounds that they had a stake in the outcome (I also support votes for 16 and 17-year olds).
I would be willing to consider an even more liberal approach, extending the franchise to anyone permanently resident in the UK irrespective of nationality, on the grounds that (a) they are actual or potential UK taxpayers, (b) the state has already decided that they can live here, and (c) this decision will certainly affect them.
The Tory position of giving full voting rights to people from the Commonwealth but not to our fellow-EU citizens is nationalist and liberal at the same time. Above all, it is completely irrational. It is anti-European (unless you are Irish, Cypriot or Maltese) while being exceptionally generous to people Britain used to rule (unless they are American) as well as to some that we never ruled.
I would love to hear a convincing explanation as to why someone from Maputo who is settled in Britain should be allowed to influence the outcome of the EU referendum while someone from Mons is excluded?
* O Hudson is a party member from South Wales
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform inadvertently lose their majority
The Major Oak is dead and Phil Harding has discovered another ancient site near Stonehenge
Reform own goals
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Margot Wilson
George Thomas
Chloe
cim
expats
54 Comments
As much as I will be wishing for an “in” result I believe that the nature of the referendum makes the nationalist approach you outline above makes the most sense….
The same rules should apply as in the Scottish referendum. Can you imagine what the Tories would have said if Salmond had tried to deny English living in Scotland the vote?
I support changing the franchise so that anyone with residency here can vote, and support lowering the voting age.
However, changing the franchise for just one vote, presumably in order to influence the outcome, as was done in Scotland, and is being proposed here, is unacceptable.
The reason that the criteria you bemoan look like being the ones used for the referendum is because they are the criteria to vote in a general election.
There is an interesting and very under-discussed question about the rise of the denizen in the past decade or so and it’s effects. It’s not entirely clear to me why this has not really been discussed, but it matters precisely because of questions like who can vote in referendums. Probably the denizen status is an issue in most of the old-EU countries, not just the EU, I don’t know if there is full discussion in other countries. I should stress here that I don’t necessarily see denizens as a bad thing or good thing per se, however it is a distinct category that has taken on some prominence in recent years and we seem to have sleep-walked along with no thought about what it means.
As it stands I think the EU referendum should be UK-citizens only – I can’t see any other coherent position on this. What this will mean for UK citizens resident outside the UK will need to be considered too.
The first point to make is that whilst the Conservative manifesto said that it would be for the British people to decide it did not say on the one hand that Irish and other Commonwealth citizens would be allowed to vote and nor did it say on the other hand that Britons under the age of 18 would be denied the vote. So whilst the Salisbury convention that the Lords do not vote against a manifesto commitment would preclude the Lords voting against a the principle of an IN/OUT referendum it certainly does not preclude the Lords making changes to the particular franchise put forward by the government.
The second point to re-affirm is that this is not the electorate which the conservatives voted for in the Scottish referendum. There are endless opportunities to ridicule the Tories for proposing one electorate on the Act of Union and another on the European Union.
The third point to make is the fate of non-UK EU citizens. After the Rochester by-election UKIP changed its policy and said that in the event of an OUT vote they would allow all such citizens to stay in the UK. The conservatives have made no such commitment. So one group of people with the most to lose would be denied a voice in the referendum. Of course non-UK EU citizens are probably protected by the Human Rights Act … if it were not for the Tories planned abolition of those rights.
The fourth point concerns another group of people with potentially much to lose. UK citizens living in Europe. In the event of a NO vote we might see an influx of 2 million British migrants who would lose their legal right to live elsewhere in Europe. Which gives rise to the intriguing possibility that in the event of a referendum we might see a large outflow of Liberal Democrat activists to the Costa Brava to run the resulting GOTV operation.
not just the EU should read – not just the UK [edit function?]
The government will use the result they want to decide the electorate. The same for the question (even “in” and “out” can be nuanced if they want to). Like all referenda, and I do mean all, it will be corrupt.
Liberals support representative democracy (even the corrupted FPTP version) because, amongst other things, we oppose the tyranny of the majority and because we accept that in the real world (as opposed to the UKIP “Alice in 1950s Whiteland” world) there are almost no political questions, even ones of conscience, for which there are simple yes/no answers.
As a committed European Federalist I am the polar opposite of the UKIPers but even I do not see this as a simple issue. All this referendum will do is contribute further towards the infantilization of whichever electorate the Tories pick.
Richard – ‘So one group of people with the most to lose would be denied a voice in the referendum.’
But this is the point – these people are not citizens. Whatever these people do have, they don’t have an absolute guarantee that the UK will forever be in the EU and forever they will have free movement. Similarly any UK people in, say, Greece have no reasonable expectation that their standing as EU free-movers will be forever pickled in aspic.
There are citizenship routes available and these people have taken a decision, cognisant or otherwise, to remain denizens.
They might well have a lot to lose (cynics might say that’s exactly why there will be a referendum) but as they aren’t citizens my sympathy is somewhat limited.
Phil Rimmer – ‘All this referendum will do is contribute further towards the infantilization of whichever electorate the Tories pick.’
Can you elaborate on this?
“Opinion: Why should someone from Maputo get to vote in the EU referendum when someone from Mons doesn’t?”
Why is it even necessary to ask this question?
Answer: because we recognise a sense of kinship and obligation arising from the shared past of our nations, something we do not recognise in our [neighbours] over the water.
And of course despite the fact that Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth, its citizens in this country can still vote here.
@ Little Jackie Paper
“… as they aren’t citizens my sympathy is somewhat limited”.
Already we see the referendum battle lines emerging. Most people are UK citizens, or not, by chance of birth. I suspect those who believe that we should have empathy for all of humanity are likely mainly to be found on the In side of the barricades whereas those who have a particular group loyalty to those clutching particular bits of paper will be found on the Out side of the barricades.
Richard – ‘Most people are UK citizens, or not, by chance of birth. I suspect those who believe that we should have empathy for all of humanity are likely mainly to be found on the In side of the barricades whereas those who have a particular group loyalty to those clutching particular bits of paper will be found on the Out side of the barricades.’
I suspect that your suspicions are dubious. OK – personally I’m agnostic about the EU and I won’t be on the barricades. I could probably build you a decent case for staying in and I could probably come up with a good out case too. However whether people are UK citizens by chance of birth or (like Mrs Paper) through naturalisation is neither here nor there. Mrs Paper incidentally can have group loyalty to more than one group of people, and reconcile issues surrounding individual citizenships in her head. I believe that the same is true for other migrants too.
People can and should form a political value-judgment on the matter of the UK’s relations with Europe. There is a strong case for this referendum. I would suggest that taking as a starting point the notion that people who form a particular view likely lack empathy for all of humanity (whatever that means) might not be the best way to debate these issues. Give the public more credit!
Never mind empathy, all British citizens should be able to vote where ever they are.
I want EU citizens to be allowed to vote on it, but not 16 and 17 year olds. The referendum needs to be respected by the whole population and not seen to be some kind of liberal fix.
However considering the Government has said EU citizens are not getting the vote, then 16 and 17 year olds should receive it. It needs to be seen to be fair by the vast majority of people.
I agree not giving EU citizens a vote, but giving Commonwealth citizens a vote on it is unfair, but I suppose it is something to do with vested interests, but the EU outers have their own vested interests.
@Eddie
“I agree not giving EU citizens a vote, but giving Commonwealth citizens a vote on it is unfair, but I suppose it is something to do with vested interests, but the EU outers have their own vested interests.”
Surely Commonwealth citizens will get the vote for the same reasons that they are allowed to vote in the general election not because of vested interests.
Someone from Calcutta can also get a vote in this under Cameron’s rules less than two months off the plane or boat. Why should Irish Republic people get a vote in this any more than other EC members? Isn’t it about time Britain stopped pretending the secession never happened and these people are still British really. And then what is the point of allowing a vote to British people who’ve gone in their tens of thousands to Spain to live with no intention whatsoever of ever returning to these shores other than on a holiday?
Cameron is trying to rig this ballot before it’s even started. 🙁
The vote is about the UK remaining in a quasi-federation which plans complete political and economic integration or whether it wishes to withdraw from that organisation in order to restore its status as a sovereign nation that once again makes its own laws.
There is also a historical dimension to be settled since successive governments handed over powers to Brussels over a forty year period whilst denying the electorate their democratic right to have a say in the matter.
It is therefore entirely right that the British people should now decide. It would be completely bizarre to let millions of EU citizens skew the vote.
Hi Daniel, I don’t know the ins and outs of the law, but I do know that EU citizens resident here can’t vote in general elections (only local and European) and I want that changed. I also want them to vote in the EU ref, but that isn’t going to happen now.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election
@Peter
About 95% odd of UK laws are made in the UK. The remaining 5% odd are mainly trade related laws which we’d have to pass on our own if we left the EU anyway.
Additionally, not a single EU law can be passed without approval from the directly elected European parliament.
By contrast, the UK is also bound with the force of law by UN treaties, NATO treaties and several other international agreements. The only way for the UK to have 100% control over its own laws is to become isolationist to the extent of barely even trading with any other countries.
Since that obviously isn’t practical I think an EU where no laws can be passed without the approval of our elected MEPs seems pretty reasonable and advantageous.
@ Little Jackie Paper – I only enter dialogue with people I believe to be using their real name.
Eddie Sammon 25th May ’15 – 6:23pm
“I want EU citizens to be allowed to vote on it, but not 16 and 17 year olds. The referendum needs to be respected by the whole population and not seen to be some kind of liberal fix. However considering the Government has said EU citizens are not getting the vote, then 16 and 17 year olds should receive it. It needs to be seen to be fair by the vast majority of people. ”
Hi Eddie, surely if people are old enough to work and pay tax, marry, join the armed forces etc they should be allowed to vote on something which they are going to have to live with for longer than older generations like my own – or even yours. This is about everyones future!
Basically, I believe we should be campaigning to extend the franchise to this group of people for all elections.
Tony Dawson 25th May ’15 – 7:22pm
“Someone from Calcutta can also get a vote in this under Cameron’s rules less than two months off the plane or boat. Why should Irish Republic people get a vote in this any more than other EC members? Isn’t it about time Britain stopped pretending the secession never happened and these people are still British really. And then what is the point of allowing a vote to British people who’ve gone in their tens of thousands to Spain to live with no intention whatsoever of ever returning to these shores other than on a holiday? Cameron is trying to rig this ballot before it’s even started. 🙁 ”
Agree on all points.
Tony Dawson 25th May ’15 – 7:22pm
“….Why should Irish Republic people get a vote in this any more than other EC members? ”
This may backfire on Cameron. The Irish have an excellent record of voting the right way in EU referenda (although it did take them a couple of goes last time). Perhaps we should invite the entire Irish population to register to vote at an address in England (legally of course). 🙂
Alternatively we could restrict the electorate to just one voter. The Australian born media mogul who now has US citizenship could cast the one vote. This would save all that nonsense of involving the people in voting because as is always the case it will be The Sun “What will win it”.
Just look at this month’s general election The Sun was right in both England and in Scotland even though the two different editions took an entirely contradictory view.
Or we could follow the example of Eurovision and let Australia vote.
As you say, Cameron is trying to rig this ballot before it’s even started, but at least we will not have the agony of watching a Liberal Democrat at PMQs nodding in agreement with Cameron as he does it.
In that sense things are on the up already.
@George Potter
I’m afraid you are completely wrong about the number of laws made in the UK.
The EU makes at least 50% of our laws, probably closer to 75%.
George Potter – ‘By contrast, the UK is also bound with the force of law by UN treaties, NATO treaties and several other international agreements.’
Yes…but the arguments about the EU do hold in that context. If we were to have a referendum on NATO I suspect that NATO membership would have a very rough ride. There are quite reasonable arguments to be had about the UN and I suspect that some people don’t perhaps know the extent of the UN beyond the blue helmet today. I most certainly would have trouble defending the WTO from the perspective of populism and understanding. How many of the public at large for example know about mode 4?
It is of course quite true (and indeed, important) to say that there is internationalism beyond the EU, just I’d be rather careful about assuming that it’s either fully understood or seen as a good thing. Quite frankly one of the reasons that the EU got itself into a mess is that the distance between it and the European on the street got rather big. Whilst this is not a new problem I don’t think that saying the other international organisations have the same problem really does much to advance the debate.
‘I only enter dialogue with people I believe to be using their real name.’
I never really understand this argument. If you were say campaigning on the High Street or knocking on doors would you demand proof of ID? I could call myself John Smith if you’d prefer. I use the name I do for privacy – something that sadly is being debased today.
Still, anyone reading this can read your argument and mine and form their own value judgment on your argument and defence of it.
@George Potter
I suggest you remind yourself of the exclusive competences for which the EU commission has total control and the member states are not allowed to create any legislation. Then we have the shared competences for which the member state can legislate, provided the legislation does not conflict with existing EU law, in which case the EU law is dominant.
That leaves areas which we control, which include aspects of our economy, education, parts of health, parts of sport and not much else.
Our say in the parliament is a paltry 9% of the total vote. I don’t call that democracy.
Stephen, you make a good point and one that I find it hard to disagree with. However I get back to the principle of wanting the referendum to be seen to be fair, so people don’t start asking for another one in five years time.
You also have to question whether people at 16 are experienced enough to understand the issues properly.
I think the “double majority lock” that the SNP are coming up with is an interesting proposal. It would cause chaos if Scotland were made to leave against their will. The whole thing is basically an exercise to appease Cameron’s back benchers.
Phil Rimmer 25th May ’15 – 8:13pm
“@ Little Jackie Paper – I only enter dialogue with people I believe to be using their real name.”
Phil, I believe this is an excellent policy – too many people on LDV are not who or even what they say they are. Sadly so many of them have views which need to be challenged!
Stephen Hesketh – With respect.
Is there some part of my view that you feel the need to challenge?
Eddie Sammon –
‘I think the “double majority lock” that the SNP are coming up with is an interesting proposal. It would cause chaos if Scotland were made to leave against their will. ‘
This is, of course, true. But then it does rather beg the question of what if the English are made to stay against their will? I’m not totally sure that’s any the better. It doesn’t take a huge leap of the imagination to see that another independence referendum might be a possibility in the event of UK exit (although if independence failed at referendum for a second time I’d think that really would close the issue). But it is worth remembering here that what Scotland would be, ‘leaving against their will,’ is the deal that the UK has with the EU – there is zero guarantee that an independent Scotland would be getting that deal in any negotiation. Interesting times.
As an aside here, it’s been some years now since I last spent any serious time in Scotland and I’m out of date now. But Scotland never really struck me as a hugely pro-EU place. The best I could say is that there was, ‘less anti-EU,’ feeling rather than any real love. I’d be interested to see polling on Scotland and the EU.
“Answer: because we recognise a sense of kinship and obligation arising from the shared past of our nations, something we do not recognise in our [neighbours] over the water.”
Really? What about the 123 years of shared history between Great Britain and Hanover?
The fact is that you could point to almost any spot on the European continent and identify a British involvement and interest there. The English came from what is now Denmark and Germany. The Danes conquered and ruled England for many years. The history of Scotland and Norway is deeply intertwined. The Norman conquerors came over the water from France and from then until the loss of Calais in 1558 (almost five centuries later) England always had a foothold in France — at times amounting to more than half the country, and a credible claim to the French crown. Even today the Channel Islands remind us of that past.
English armies made celebrated campaigns in Portugal (a long-time ally) and Spain as well as France and Germany. Gibraltar is still a British territory. Great Britain shared a monarch with the Netherlands from 1689 to 1702, and with Hanover from 1714 to 1837.
The fact is that the UK is, like it or not, a European power and its history is deeply enmeshed with that of Europe — longer and more deeply than it ever has with the Commonwealth. To pretend that the thirty kilometres separating Dover from Calais are an Iron Curtain is to fly in the face of history.
@ Stephen hesketh – ” Hi Eddie, surely if people are old enough to work and pay tax, marry, join the armed forces etc they should be allowed to vote on something which they are going to have to live with….”
There are numerous impediments society put in place to protect young people under the age of 18, we need to look first at these before we make rash decisions on who can vote.
Small things, like Voidable Contract to name but one.
Or the age of criminal responsibility.
Another is the inability to purchase alcohol or cigarettes or pornography until 18.
Or driving until 17.
Or fighting in the frontline in Her Majesty’s Forces until 18.
Marriage without parental consent before 18.
So, before making a fuss about voting at sixteen, first consider whether ‘we’ consider 16 year-olds to be adult.
I have no problem with Irish voters taking part, they are a long accepted exception to our rules on the franchise, because….. we recognise a kinship with them that we do not extend to others!
Little Jackie Paper, good point on what if England is made to stay against their/our will.
@ david-1 “The fact is that you could point to almost any spot on the European continent and identify a British involvement and interest there. The English came from what is now Denmark and Germany.”
But does anyone care? The only test here that matters is whether people recognise and value the relationship.
I’d be delighted for you if you could demonstrate that ‘we’ (as in: the British people, in case you were in any doubt), held a more solid familial sentiment to our continental neighbours than is the case with our commonwealth family. Please carry on…
‘“Opinion: Why should someone from Maputo get to vote in the EU referendum when someone from Mons doesn’t?”
Too late for that now,if the party had been proactive instead of being totally negative and trying to block the referendum it could have had an input.
I dont really care what proporfion of laws are made in UK vs Europe, I mainly care if laws are any good. In a globalised world UK is simply not capable of making some of the more useful laws on its own, or it doesnt try. This is especially the case for consumer laws and pollution laws. One outcome of Brexit may be more Brits adopting dual nationality and Continental Europeans doing likewise, where it was previously possible but not necessary. Continental Europeans are going to be less likely to vote for the little Englander Tory party.
“And then what is the point of allowing a vote to British people who’ve gone in their tens of thousands to Spain to live” Many are retired people who paid taxes during their working lives and would be forced back by a UK EU exit.
There are others who have gone overseas to work. What should they have done? Stayed in the UK and lived on the dole?
I sense, I feel without undue justification, that the Lib Dems risk being portrayed in this upcoming referendum campaign as focusing on the wrong things and fighting the wrong battles. The inevitable debate on who should be entitled to vote being an obvious example; to the majority of voters be they pro or anti EU it is of little interest or worst irrelevant. Should the party really use the limited airtime/attention it is going to get to wage such debates, or should it be more tactical and try to focus on the issues that voters are really interested in?
I have very strong feelings about this.
In my opinion, the Commonwealth is the most meaningless of international organisations – if it did not exist, there would not be one voice outside of England calling for it to be created. Its continuation, trying to dress with romanticism an association founded solely on who was fortunate enough to be annexed to the British Empire within the past two centuries, is simply pointless.
The argument about links, community, solidarity? That argument asks me to feel more connected to Indians than to Chinese people, better in touch with Australians than with Americans, and more intertwined with people on the other side of the planet whose countries I will never visit than with people a four hour train journey away. It’s fantasy. But, just to be absolutely clear, in referendum politics I would draw no distinction between any of them.
I feel there are two acceptable solutions to this problem. One, where everyone who is permanently resident in the UK now gets a vote in the European Referendum. Or two, where every UK citizen living in the UK now gets a vote in the European Referendum. I would prefer the first, but would accept the second as I can see the case for preventing anyone from getting to tell the story that it was an ‘enemy within’ that turned the vote against their preferred option.
Anything else takes arbitrary preferences and creates a tiered system with very real implications out of them. In this case, it’s Europeans with second class status, Americans and everyone else in a totally disregarded third class, and the citizens of the former Empire enjoying some kind of perverse priority over them all in this case. Ridiculous. I would hope that at least as much attention falls on this aspect of the referendum franchise as the votes at sixteen aspect.
@jbt: “I have no problem with Irish voters. . . we recognise a kinship with them that we do not extend to others!”
Have you ever considered asking them if they feel the same way?
@jbt: “But does anyone care? The only test here that matters is whether people recognise and value the relationship.”
If you seriously intend to pursue that route of argument — i.e., one of parochial prejudice — then you’ve just admitted that your line of argument about “the shared past of our nations” was entirely superfluous. You are simply assuming that everyone has the same sentimental associations as you. You fail to admit that there might be many different notions of what constitutes a meaningful relationship with the outside world. For many, the Commonwealth is the ghost of a dead empire. A Europe where thousands of people from the UK travel, vacation, and work, is a present reality.
@ David-1 – good job we live in a democracy where it would be possible to get government action to address questions of identity and free association then, eh?
things like referendums are pretty good for this i hear.
@ TJ – “Anything else takes arbitrary preferences and creates a tiered system with very real implications out of them.”
I totally agree, never been able to understand why i should be expected to give a monkeys about my european citizenship. We obviously feel differently, the answer perhaps is to refer to my comment above.
Sammy O’Neil: I do think there are grave risks for Liberal Democrats in and ore particularly after an EU Referendum. A vote to stay in will be urged on by the same kind of fears that stoked the Scottish referendum and the last election. Never mind that many of these fears will be realistic, an outcome to remain in, would be followed by a strong backlash.
The trick that Cameron will need to try to pull off is to deflect that backlash against Lib Dems, Labour and SNP and represent himself as fundamentally anti EU after all.
Presuming that Cameron will campaign to stay in, would we be well advised to leave all the heavy lifting, the expense and the dire warnings to him? Can we afford to stand alongside Cameron? Would we want to be seen to endorse his ‘renegotiation’ whatever it is? Would we even wish to commit much of our depleted resources on a campaign?
My assumption is that Cameron, having form in winning referendums and then profiting from the fall out, will get what he wants again. This is after all very much a referendum driven by internal divisions in the Conservative Party, we have to be very careful to avoid walking into another bear trap. Sadly Lib Dems have form here too.
Peter is wrong. The House of Commons Library states that 7% of primary legislation in the UK is down to the EU. Tim Harford of the FT and colleagues at the Open University found that even if you include all the SIs (secondary legislation) you struggle to reach much more than 50%.
Martin.
I agree with you. This referendum is essentially about the Tory back benches. Let Cameron take the burden of the argument. He doesn’t want to leave the EU. He’s the Prime Minister and the opposition has no business helping him by acting as a deflection. We should insist on a straight in/out vote. No get out clause. Then the Lib Dems should just see it as a matter of personal choice. Do not be campaign hard and de not get used. That was the mistake in Scotland and it cost the Lib Dems, as well as Labour, dearly.
This country belongs to its people, no-one else. UK citizens should decide the UK’s future, no-one else (although we have always made an exception in the case of Irish citizens). How hard can this be?
I think there’s a strong case for the franchise for national referenda being the same as for general elections. This should be set down in law, surely, and not contested on a referendum-by-referendum basis.
There’s a case for the franchise being different but most of the same arguments would apply just as strongly to the general election franchise – especially since, given the lack of a written constitution, an elected government could take decisions every bit as drastic as those that we put to referenda.
Current UK practice is that EU citizens vote in subnational elections (hence also in sub-UK referenda) but not in general elections (hence not in national referenda). The proposed franchise for this referendum is similar to that for the AV referendum.
The Scottish referendum was anomalous in adding votes at 16 when they haven’t yet been granted for Holyrood elections – though we know they soon will be.
Even the most liberal voting advocate seems to be happy restricting the franchise at non-resident Brits, EU and Commonwealth citizens. So my non-British, non-EU, non-Commonwealth wife, mother to a British child, of some 20 years UK residence… her views, I guess, are of no consequence relative to someone from France or Fiji.
I have no problem with her not getting a say under the ‘nationalist’ approach. I do get somewhat irked by the implication that her views are of no more consequence than those of a resident non-Brit from another, more favoured nation.
The group we should consider excluding from the referendum are the over 80s, maybe even the 0ver 75s. Whether we stay or go will have little impact on their few remaining years, and they are quite likely to leave us, as their ‘last will and testament – a vote to leave the EU and turn the clock back to that ‘perfect’ world of about 1952 – which if I remember right was the year of the London smog, rationing and an epidemic of polio.
@ Stewart – “So my non-British, non-EU, non-Commonwealth wife, mother to a British child, of some 20 years UK residence… her views, I guess, are of no consequence relative to someone from France or Fiji.”
Become a citizen*.
My non-british wife faces the same barrier.
* OED noun – A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized:
Stewart – Your wife is not a citizen, she is a denizen. That has implications – always has done.
My wife took UK citizenship because she realised that being a denizen only goes so far when the centre of your life moves. Your wife, presumably, is an adult with agency and the citizenship route is there for a reason.
I believe all tax-paying residents of a country (perhaps with a minimum length of residency) should be allowed to vote. I pay the taxes I should be allowed to elect those that decide how they’re spent.
Unfortunately afaik no country operates that way.
But afaik, no other country than the UK allows non-citizens to vote either. The UK allows a quite random set to do (some have historical links, but some not. As pointed out Cameroon is far more French than British! )
That means that in 2010, an Australian mate of mine (born of Chinese parents, so much for the ‘historical’ link) that had barely been in the country 1 year, on a limited work visa , was allowed to vote whilst I, resident here for over 12 years at the time, without a need for a visa, wasn’t. Doesn’t really seem fair to me ( I got him to vote lib dem on my behalf though 😉 ) . And it’s not even like it’s reciprocal as the commonwealth countries do not allow British to vote in their elections.
The matter is just made worse with the referendum as it affect our future in huge ways.
As for the argument ‘just get the uk citizenship’, it’s been made harder and harder (not only that stupid citizen test, now you need a language test at degree level, which I suspect more than a few British born would find hard), and it also cost about £1000! Just for the right to vote, would YOU pay that?
And although that’s not my case (I’m French), not that I’d care, several countries (Germany and Spain for example) do not allow dual citizenship so taking a uk one means giving up your original one (Miriam would be in that situation).
Lastly, afaik there’s no way to distinguish uk from commonwealth citizens in the electoral register at present, so reducing the franchise to UK only for the referendum will not happen. Extending it to EU would be easy on the other hand since we’re already on the register for local elections.