The lack of a clear connection in law between British citizenship and the right to vote has permitted successive British governments to allow the following injustice:
- Fellow but expatriate British citizens are rather arbitrarily in law deprived of their right to vote in UK elections after 15 years abroad.
- An estimated 1 million non-British citizens from 54 Commonwealth countries but resident in the UK will be entitled to vote in , and possibly influence, the 2015 general election.
According to the article below “Commonwealth citizens ‘should lose right to vote’ in The Times of 28th August, 2013 :
“In 2007, the government ordered a review of British citizenship laws by Lord Goldsmith QC, the then Attorney general, but did not act on his advice that it should make a ‘clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote'”.
Fight this injustice by ensuring via the Electoral Commission’s website www.aboutmyvote.co.uk that you are still registered to vote in UK elections or, if you have lived abroad for more than 15 years, we’d appreciate you adding your vote here in our on-line poll to remove this time limit on our voting rights.
Yes i had similar thoughts . Its quite simple when looking at recent history and quite close to UK . Find a Martello Fort ( ex radio caroline ) or Forvik island within Shetland archipelago which the owner has been having a tussle with Scotland and Westminster insofar that Shetland has never been of Scotland and Westminster which at the time was England only had an unpaid leasehold on Shetland from Denmark ( this is obviously a hot potato for Westminster Treasury re oïl revenues !!). Within ‘ Commonwealth ‘ there is the interesting case which was heard by the Commonwealth Court wherby the owner of South Island won a case in the 60’s that it had no legal Relationship with North Island ( Australia ) These states / countries have their own internationaly accepted passports eg .
see my many blogs elsewhere on this issue . UN /ECHR definition of Citizen and right to representation LOSS of a Citizens right to representation = LOSS OF IDENTITY . If this is established as a principle of DEMOCRACY then clearly a Government that discusses and disenfranchises its citizens is on a par with a government that discusses and decides to send troops against its citizens ? All other issues residency , tax etc are irrelevent to this principle of democracy . It is so fundermental that it should not need to be discussed . Note that there are quite a few countries that exclude its citizens from representation not just UK and Eire . Note I was refused in 2011 to be included in overseas voting roll when I applied at my last UK electoral Registration Office . Seems to me the Westminster Establishment hasn’t learnt anything over the years ( democracy er is that a new version of a pink gin ) after all why have so many states / countries asked / forght for INDEPENDENCE from THE WESTMINSTER ESTABLISHMENT and by the way be a suprise these states / countries have people in them .
Hmmm… Past midnight so it’s mad dream time…
Of course we don’t have a Boston Harbour to stage a tea party in. BUT… So far seceding states have been tied to a territory (e.g. USA, Northern Rhodesia, and de facto all members of the Commonwealth). What about an EXTRA-TERRITORIAL state of “Britabroadia”, seceding from the UK but, as we are British and seem to want to continue to be in at least some way British, making a unilateral declaration of adherence to the Commonwealth (no need to give up one’s British citizenship, just acquire an extra one, “Britabroadish”, as a common basis). After all other countries have put in place “expatriate parliaments” for example, which are listened to by their governments. Could “Britabroadia” join the EU? After all with 6 million or more of us in the World, we are larger than 12 of the EU member states, including Denmark and Finland.
Or an extension of this idea, “Eurabroadia” which any European citizen denied their natural democratic rights by their home state could join? Essentially Danes, Greeks, Hungarians, Irish, Maltese and UK.
After all, the concept of an extra-territorial state, albeit with some territorial attachments, is quite common – look at multi-national firms. Other examples exist also. But if need be we could perhaps buy or be given some island (preferably European – there are hundreds of unoccupied islands in European waters.
In fact the Electoral Commission has further confirmed that if a Commonwealth citizen leaves the UK, they are NOT able to register as overseas voters, so the anomaly above is limited to when they are actually living in the UK.
Based on the last underlined text in Richard Ford’s article, confirmed to me by the Electoral Commission, presumably a Commonwealth citizen who is registered to vote in the UK, including in EP elections which are supposed according to the EU treaties to be reserved for EU citizens (which I suppose Commonwealth citizens are not, unless they happen to also possess a EU nationality) and who leaves the UK for another EU member state or even elsewhere in the world will keep his or her right to vote in their old UK constituency for 15 years after leaving, including in EP elections.
Is not the UK in a state of infraction in allowing for example an Australian, Canadian, Jamaican etc. citizen to vote in EP elections anyhow? And even more so in allowing him/her to CARRY ON voting in EP elections for 15 years even if he/she lives in Australia, Fiji, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the world?