Brexit Encore

[john beardsworth]

Why were you denied the right to vote?

Screw up. The UK was supposed to have left, so no voting arrangements had been made for UK residents in the EU, or vice versa. That includes postal votes where you might vote in your own country or for voting in the country where you live. Some people figured things out and got paperwork sorted out, others didn't .

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Screw up. The UK was supposed to have left...

The question was about Brexit referendum.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Which does nothing to explain why some of us living abroad, who are still British citizens unless we changed nationalities, were denied a vote.

Seems extraordinarily unfair and undemocratic. Our past and future is irrevocably bound up with the future of the United Kingdom on almost every level. As to why it makes any legal difference to allow a migrant of five years the vote but not one of many more years, is crazy and no more than an attempt at rigging the presumed colour of such a vote. Of the two, the one with the greater foreign experience surely knows one helluva lot more about the advantages or otherwise of open doors than the other! If anything, he can bring a less rose-tinted perspective to the debate. But then that's not was wanted, was it?

There was a good deal of litigation about that, Rob. As far as I recall, the rule prevented those who had not lived in the UK for 15 years from voting in the referendum. A claim was brought and failed, both at first instance and on appeal: see here.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Britons pride themselves on their “unwritten” constitution. America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the world that its style of government was built on solid foundations laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.

That's not right, although it's commonly said. We do not have an "unwritten" constitution: there are centuries of legal and academic writing on the topic, and numerous cases decided at the highest level of the judiciary which are binding on lower courts and, without good reason, on what is now the Supreme Court as well.

What we lack is a codified constitution, such as is possessed by the USA. As ever, there are arguments for and against; but the rigid application to modern life of certain aspects of the US constitution hardly gives one confidence that it's the most appropriate solution. On the whole, we have pragmatically adapted to changing circumstances, something which is tricky if one relies on a 200-year-old document.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's not right, although it's commonly said. We do not have an "unwritten" constitution: there are centuries of legal and academic writing on the topic, and numerous cases decided at the highest level of the judiciary which are binding on lower courts and, without good reason, on what is now the Supreme Court as well....

How is that different from what the article said:

... governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament.

[RSL]

. . .but the rigid application to modern life of certain aspects of the US constitution hardly gives one confidence that it's the most appropriate solution.

Which aspects would those be, Jeremy? And what in "modern life" has made those aspects inapplicable?

[Rob C]

Have you read the article, you would have found exactly that:

Yes, I did read it, to the extent that I was not required to "sign up", as the page requested; if there is more to the thing than what is available to view, it will remain hidden behind their firedoor. My point is that he declares the system is past its sell-by date; that he eventually - if resignedly - admits it will get through it doesn't alter his assumptions that the system is kaput. In fact, that he does admit that it will survive simply underlines the fact that he or any other journo with the wish, could have slanted the thing in either direction, concluding in the opposite direction. Folks can argue in all directions, as they obviously do, or life would otherwise just be a series of statements with no follow ups. Again, much newspaper ado about not a lot.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

That's not right, although it's commonly said. We do not have an "unwritten" constitution: there are centuries of legal and academic writing on the topic, and numerous cases decided at the highest level of the judiciary which are binding on lower courts and, without good reason, on what is now the Supreme Court as well.

What we lack is a codified constitution, such as is possessed by the USA. As ever, there are arguments for and against; but the rigid application to modern life of certain aspects of the US constitution hardly gives one confidence that it's the most appropriate solution. On the whole, we have pragmatically adapted to changing circumstances, something which is tricky if one relies on a 200-year-old document.

Jeremy

The American Constitution can be and has been amended to change with the times.  However, it requires a high bar for change to avoid passing "hot" emotions that can effect laws in countries with no written constitution. The fact it's 200 years old does not make it out of date however.  It's very organization for government structure and the rights of man protects against human's grab for power today since not much has changed with man's psychology and DNA in a million years. 

[Rob C]

There was a good deal of litigation about that, Rob. As far as I recall, the rule prevented those who had not lived in the UK for 15 years from voting in the referendum. A claim was brought and failed, both at first instance and on appeal: see here.

Jeremy

Now I understand why my lawyer granddaughter works such long hours; I would have been driven insane by now trying to stay awake, objective and - heaven forfend - of reasonable thought, as in the mythical reasonable man.

Why does it have to be so difficult to accept that any country's national should still enjoy exercising his birthrights, voting an important one, by virtue of that condition? I fail to see why it becomes confused with anything else such as freedom of movement from one place to another. Apparently, the US believes in that right of belonging so strongly that every American citizen will pay taxes to America regardless of where he lives!

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Apparently, the US believes in that right of belonging so strongly that every American citizen will pay taxes to America regardless of where he lives!

Do British expats also pay taxes back home?

[Alan Klein]

Now I understand why my lawyer granddaughter works such long hours; I would have been driven insane by now trying to stay awake, objective and - heaven forfend - of reasonable thought, as in the mythical reasonable man.

Why does it have to be so difficult to accept that any country's national should still enjoy exercising his birthrights, voting an important one, by virtue of that condition? I fail to see why it becomes confused with anything else such as freedom of movement from one place to another. Apparently, the US believes in that right of belonging so strongly that every American citizen will pay taxes to America regardless of where he lives!

:-)

Generally, ex-pat Americans can take a credit against American taxes owed for what they paid in taxes to foreign countries where they work. They also can vote in Federal elections although certain States may not allow voting for State candidates.  Also, if you vote in  particular state, you may open yourself to local state taxes.

[Rob C]

Do British expats also pay taxes back home?

It depends: there is an international agreement between particular countries where things are set up to avoid people paying double taxation, the paying of similar taxes twice - in the place of "residence" as well as in their homeland, Britain, in this case.

There is also a set of agreements that allows wills to be drawn up to suit the native land of origin. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to apply to the act of inheritance, so regardless of whom your money is going to, the Spanish, reasonably, want their pound of flesh from anything you hold in Spain, which is a good reason for not dying here if you have children you love. :-)

A bone of contention is the difference between residence and domicile. Not as simple or clear as that might look at first glance.

Worse, for the really rich, you can't just buy a superyacht and live on that, and escape all taxation, either. My heart truly bleeds!

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It depends...

So you are saying you do not pay British taxes. If so, then, to paraphrase, "no taxation - no representation."

[Rob C]

So you are saying you do not pay British taxes. If so, then, to paraphrase, "no taxation - no representation."

I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.

[Alan Klein]

I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.

There seems to be a 15 year limit for staying out of GB after which time you lose your British voting rights.  I wouldn't like that either.  I believe there are no US limits  for American citizens.  What happens with other BRitish things like passports after 15 years?  Do you actually lose your citizenship and become a "man without a country".   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.

Oh, come on, Rob! You know what I meant by “paraphrasing”: no taxation - no voting. Or, in other words, your vote won’t be represented. British rights come with British obligations. When I move back to Belgrade, I will continue to vote in the US elections, but I will also pay US taxes.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I am not asking anyone to represent me; I am asking for my right to vote as a Britush citizen to be respected.

Come to think of it, I am beginning to see the benefits of the EU. Instead of writing to his member of the Parliament, Rob, for instance, can ask Germany to represent him and take the UK to court to force it to change the 15-year rule. Sweet!

[Jeremy Roussak]

Why does it have to be so difficult to accept that any country's national should still enjoy exercising his birthrights, voting an important one, by virtue of that condition? I fail to see why it becomes confused with anything else such as freedom of movement from one place to another.

There's nothing difficult in accepting the concept, Rob. It would take more time than I have to dig into the relevant legislation, but as far as I can gather,

 - anyone eligible to vote in a UK election was eligible to vote in the referendum;
 - that includes those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years, but only if they had registered to vote in a UK election at some point in the previous 15 years.

So the issue wasn't the length of time you or Mr Shindler had been living abroad; it was the fact that you hadn't registered to vote in the UK for 15 years, which (reasonably or otherwise) was presumably felt to indicate a lack of interest in the UK for that length of time.

Come to think of it, I am beginning to see the benefits of the EU. Instead of writing to his member of the Parliament, Rob, for instance, can ask Germany to represent him and take the UK to court to force it to change the 15-year rule. Sweet!

He could ask, and it might try; but it would fail.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Which aspects would those be, Jeremy? And what in "modern life" has made those aspects inapplicable?

The word "guns" springs to mind, Russ. I imagine there are others.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Oh, come on, Rob! You know what I meant by “paraphrasing”: no taxation - no voting. Or, in other words, your vote won’t be represented. British rights come with British obligations. When I move back to Belgrade, I will continue to vote in the US elections, but I will also pay US taxes.

Doesn't hold: as Brit in Spain you are in the same tax position during your first few years abroad as after thirty or more.

Worth noting, in the context: whilst I ran the business from here, I did pay my taxes into the UK system, VAT included, and with thousands of calendar units, that was some VAT contribution!

Also, in the case of somebody on the breadline, in either country, they will be paying no tax anywhere. Do you then deprive them of their native rights to vote because they are too poor to pay for it?

Ill considered concept favouring the rich and easily mobile.