How is it strange that only British citizens can vote in British elections?

Dan Grover

Well if they live here, why not? Why does nationality matter? A Dane who lives here pays British taxes, uses the British NHS, has to abide by British law. Why should their place of birth affect their ability to have a say in the things that affect them?

Walsingham's Ghost

@ Dan Grover

You are really Nick Clegg and I hereby claim my prize...

WG

Peter From Maidstone

If they are not a citizen then of course they should not be able to vote. And becoming a citizen should not be a trivial matter but should require a 5 or 7 year probation.

toco

Michael Crick is very much part of the BBC anti Conservative brigade and should be sacked for his overtly biased opinions.However,what is far more important this afternoon is the news Lisbon has to be re-ratified which presents David Cameron with a stunning opportunity to trust the British people and promise a referendum.Given Clegg's imploding Euro such a promise represents real change.

AKA Jorge

There is no other place in the world that this could happen and the only reason that it is happening here now is that Brown's regime has been buying votes with soft immigration policies.

British citizednship has effectively been abolished over the New Labour years.

Marcher Baron

What I find strange is that anyone should think that all and sundry should be able to vote in our elections.

SJH

Another oddity: Irish and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK are entitled to vote.

Alex R

Some Commonwealth citizens and Rep of Ireland citizens are also allowed to vote in the general election.

Hawkeye

@Dan Grover - if he wants to vote here then let him apply for citizenship.

Simple.

TomTom

Crick is getting very annoying. We may have been at Oxford together but his lack of intellectual grasp is beyond belief. The EU Treaties SPECIFICALLY exclude EU nationals from VOTING, being CANDIDATES, or holding National Office as Legislators or Civil Servants in EU countries of which they are NOT a Citizen. It ONLY permits them to stand in Local Elections where little tricks such as the German one of making EU nationals appear in person to request a voting registration help limit the impact

david

In the absence of a reciprocal agreement, the only people able to vote in British elections, should be British citizens domiciled in the UK for tax purposes.

luke

Isnt Crick's point that it's a little odd you can be an elected representative without being a voter?

Dickie

Civis Romanus Sum !

Once upon a time, Citizenship mattered. A Citizen had rights, duties and pivileges above and beyond mere Subjects and, certainly, above Aliens who happened to be Guests in one's country and were expected to, and expected to, abide by the old maxim 'When in Rome'.

Today, however, like so much else, the notion of Citizenship has been dumbed down to the point of nonsense with citizenship in the general sense being equated to residency, legal or otherwise. Let us hope that under the next government we replace the namby pamby notion that everyone must have the equal right to 'status' with the once established mantra that to be an Englishman, wining first prize in the great lottery of life, is entitled to chose the government of his own country.

I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant

Dean

Peter from Maidstone - I can assure you that becoming a British citizen is not a trivial matter. Even if your spouse is British, naturalisation costs well over £1,000, and you have to demonstrate not only proficiency in English but also an understanding of British culture. Even if you have lived here legally as the citizen of another country for 30 years. In fact, it's bloody difficult to become a British citizen. The idea that it is not is simply an urban myth.

startledcod

Non-British and non-EU Citizens people can and do vote in elections and can stand as candidates.

My wife is New Zealandish and has yet to become a British Subject. What is more, despite being well educated, employing many people and contributing handsomely to the Government's misspent coffers the time when we can welcome her as 'one of us' is put off as she fears she will be unable to pass the bizarre and ridiculous politically correct Citizenship Test. Q - Women in Britain do not have the same access as men to promotion and better-paid jobs TRUE or FALSE? A - TRUE. Women in Britain do not have the same access as men to promotion and better-paid jobs. Who sets the questions, Harriet Harman?

penlan

Mr Grover-you vote in the country of which you are a citizen.Why should you be allowed to vote in more than one state?If you wish to vote in your new home,you must renounce your allegiance to the country of your birth.

As for Crick.I'm surprised that he does not describe the right to vote Conservative as an electoral quirk.

Dan Grover

Hawkeye: But why should he have to? I think we need to get all this petty nationalism out of it. He's not a "guest in our country" - he lives here, just like you or I do. The fact he wasn't born here is irrelevant to the fact that his life is as affected by law changes as ours are.

No taxation without representation, etc.

mojofury

@Toco

Who says the Lisbon treaty needs re-ratified, this is the election winner if true and of cause DC plays his cards right.

djw2009

What is strange is that the so-called ethnic minorities can vote in our elections. If you go to China, you will find you can't take part in their political system, whether you are born there or not, if you are not Chinese. Yet we are trying to undermine ourselves. Why can't the Danish person you referred to vote in our elections if millions of Afro-Caribbeans, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis do so? Don't give the bull about their being "British".

johnny Leach

Well Mr Brown we the Smokers of this world are very happy to say Goodbye to this Bad Goverment at long last, Why Why Why Did you not act now with all these Pubs & Clubs Closing down Thanks to your party thinking regarding this topic you yes you are the to Blame no-one else for your downfall Sorry but Goodbye,,,

David Ossitt

“Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK can also vote.”

This is the main cause of the problem with postal voting; why in the name of heaven should a Pakistani student be able to vote in a UK general election?

Today’s papers show examples of the fraudulent multi-registering at addresses where such students are living.

It is little wonder that the BNP is having more success.

UK elections should be for UK citizens.

And before anyone accuses me of being racist because I singled out the Pakistani students, the known cases of postal voting abuse is largely confined to those who come from the subcontinent.

Dennis Churchill

Our current dominant political class does not believe in the concept of nationality so it is not surprising that some advocate foreigners being able to vote in our elections.
No doubt they would like to make it an offence to use the word “foreigner”—if it isn’t already.

john lloyd

This is EU law sn't it?

EU citizens have the right to vote in municipal and European elections in the country in which they are resident but for national elections they can only vote in their country of domicile/citizenship.

Don't say even Crick is now finding fault with the edicts of the Eurocrat behemoth.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

I wonder if the EU have snuck in the right of EU Citizens to vote in "local" elections across the region and stand in same because very soon they will be the only ones we shall be permitted to vote in once regionalisation has been fully implemented...

Verity

It's OK, David Ossitt - Pakistani isn't a race. It's a nationality. I suspect that even Harriet Harman knows that.

Englishman Abroad

Not sure what the Irish reneged upon, Right here right now, a resident British Citizen can vote on local, EU and Generall Elections, but not Presidential Elections or Referenda.
Sounds pretty fair to me.

djw2009

The word "foreigner" has become meaningless as so many people of non-British descent have been given our citizenship. We need to re-register our citizenship rolls to limit our passports to people of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish descent. If others have come here legally through our own stupidity, we can give them a Permanent Residence Card, but they are not our citizens, whether born here or not.

Streeter

Anyone resident in the UK and paying taxes should be able to vote. No taxation without representation.

Ian

I was astounded to hear that Commonwealth citizens can vote in our elections. Crazy! Why should anyone other than UK citizens be allowed to vote in UK elections?

tomppa_29

I'd argue for a right to vote in a general election being based on long term residency, rather than nationality. I'm a British citizen but haven't lived in the country for the better part of a decade and have no plans to move back. Yet I can continue to vote in a marginal constituency, despite being largely unaffected by the outcome of the election. Meanwhile, I'm disenfranchised from voting for the national government to which I pay my taxes.

Verity

Dean - claims that it is complicated to become a British citizen, adding, "In fact, it's bloody difficult to become a British citizen. The idea that it is not is simply an urban myth."

You mean rural people don't buy into it?

cg

djw sounds like a very, very unpleasant person. Cameron is lucky not to number djw among his supporters.

PK

Why should I as an Australian citizen be entitled to vote on Thursday in the UK election? I'm not sure because there is no reciprocal arrangement in Australia but it does make me feel welcome and I pay my taxes so guess I'm entitled to a vote. I tell people who ask that the UK let anyone vote because they are so desperate to improve voter turnout.... so will accept anyone, even Australians!!

Verity

I can assure those above posting that "citizenship" has been denuded of its meaning that, although this is undeniably true - and was so engineered with deliberate malice - in Britain, it's not true in other areas of the world.

Citizenship is out of the question, but try getting Permanent Resident status in Singapore. Good luck!

In the US, you have to have lived in the US - legally, on a Green Card - for five years and have a totally clean record - OK, you can have a couple of traffic tickets as long as you paid them - in order to APPLY for citizenship. This requires study and a serious examination of your knowledge of the country's history and ethos.

In Mexico, foreigners have to go down every year and reapply for permission to stay for one more year. You also have to take all your financial papers and undergo an interview (in Spanish, btw).

In two weeks, you can go back and pick up your new visa, if such was granted, and that is for a further one year only. After five years, you can apply for citizenship or permanent residency. Citizenship requires attendance at a horrendously difficult oral exam. They give you a list of 100 questions on Mexican history and governance to study (in Spanish). On the day of your interview, the examiner picks out five of the questions you have studied for. You then take an oral and written exam on them. And your Spanish had better be up to scratch.

Let us not go around thinking the whole world is as degraded as Britain here the ethos of the souk now prevails.

Peter Crawford

@Luke - No. Read the original post again with Crick's quotation. Concentrate this time. Use all your powers of English comprehension. If that still fails you'll need to phone a friend.

@Dan Grover - I agree with James Forsyth. The anomaly in the UK is not that foreign nationals can not vote in British elections but that some of them CAN. No other country offers such generous suffrage and Crick (like you) is talking through his backside. My brother has lived in Poland for fifteen years and has never had a vote there because he remains a British citizen.

Augustus

"UK elections should be for UK citizens" and
those ordinary resident in the UK even if they were born abroad, provided they have renounced their right to vote in their country of birth/domicile.

Cormac Lucey

Contrary to what the main post suggests, UK citizens can vote in Irish general and local elections.

djw2009

>>>>Anyone resident in the UK and paying taxes should be able to vote. No taxation without representation.

In addition to undermining our nation, this priniciple is mendacious. There is no connection in the UK between contributing to the public purse and voting - millions of people who live off the state (either on benefits or as parasites working in the state sector) do not make a contribution and yet vote.

Verity

"No taxation without representation."

Streeter, before mouthing off a platitude that you clearly don't understand, please study the history of the American Revolution. Duh.

djw2009

Let me give an example. A parasite named Betty Woad, Head of the England Walking! Initiative at DEFRA, earns a salary of £247000. Formally, she submits a tax return, although as her money is provided by the government in the first place, she is not a net contributor. It would be just the same (and simpler) if she were paid £139,750.40 from state coffers for her non-job and as a public "servant" given the privilege of not paying tax or national insurance. So she contributes nothing - yet this parasite has the vote? So let's hear no more of "no representation, no taxation".

djw2009

>>>>djw sounds like a very, very unpleasant person. Cameron is lucky not to number djw among his supporters.

You unwittingly reveal the true basis of your views. It is not that you view the minorities as British, but rather that you view yourself as a nice enough person to give them our citizenship. It is all about your self-righteousness. Yet in non-Western countries, debauching one's citizenship is not a way of showing you are a nice person: that creates social anomie, it destroys a society as a group of people with a common culture, it imports crime, worst of all it destroys our freedoms by allowing the state to get more closely involved in monitoring our views. While you view yourself as lovely and kind in supporting the end of our nation, you are actually backing the end of freedom. You only have to watch the Jeremy Kyle show to see the impact on the working class of growing up in a society that is not longer a society in the strict sense of the term. Your self-righteousness I hold to be unrighteousness. Now, you wouldn't be one of those who drove that Englishman to suicide recently over telling a non-PC joke, would you? I suppose you would get a rush of self-righteousness while harrying someone to his death. Real morality is based on creating a great society with a cultural discourse that sites the members of our nation in time and place.

denis cooper

The "strange quirk in the British political system" is that we allow non-citizens to participate in it any level, and that should be phased out rather than extended to ever more foreign nationals.

All natural born citizens are presumed to owe a natural duty of allegiance to their country, which on the one hand entitles them to participate in its government but on the other hand exposes them to charges of treason if they fail in their duty of allegiance.

Foreigners are normally held to owe no such duty of allegiance, and if they wish to join in they should apply for naturalisation, swearing allegiance to their new country before they're permitted to participate in its government.

Of course while they are in this country foreigners are still expected to obey the law of the land, including its tax laws, and in some cases they may become liable to criminal prosecution under British law for acts committed while they were not in the country.

Still, it's not entirely straightforward - the question of Lord Haw-Haw's duty of allegiance to the Crown was central to his trial for treason:

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/william_joyce.htm

"The prosecution accepted that under counts 1 and 2 Joyce did not owe allegiance as he was an American citizen. However, they argued that as he held a British Passport and left the U.K on this passport he had the protection given to passport holders. As protection demands allegiance, Joyce broke this allegiance and committed treason."

denis cooper

toco, there is no question of the Lisbon Treaty having to be re-ratified so that three surplus Germans can keep their seats on the EU Parliament gravy train - see here:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/05/a-gamechanger-for-cameron.html

Thomas Widmann

I'm another Dane living here, so although I'm a member of a political party here and allowed to vote in local, Scottish and European elections, I of course cannot vote in the general election.
I'm not complaining of the fact that I need to become a UK citizen to vote. My complaints are the following:
(1) Denmark disenfranchises Danish citizens two years after they leave the country, so I can't vote in national elections anywhere. This is obviously a problem with Denmark, not the UK.
(2) I'd become a UK citizen today if I wasn't forced to give up my Danish citizenship (which I mainly want to keep to give my daughters dual nationality) in the process. This again is Denmark's fault -- the UK would allow me to keep it.
(3) I do find it unfair that Commonwealth citizens can vote when I can't. A generation ago, this might have made sense, but surely the UK is more closely integrated with the EU than with most Commonwealth countries these days. My suggestion would be only to allow UK citizens to vote, with no exceptions.

Victor Southern

The Commonwealth has some strange members now - countries that never had any ties with the old British Empire. Mocambique and Namibia come to mind. Yet citizens of Gibraltar, St, Helena and the Falklands have no vote here, even if resident in this country.

Why we persist with the two way and unbalanced convention with Ireland is another oddity.

David Lindsay

How is it conservative to advocate either any weakening of the remaining ties between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, or any weakening of the ties between Britain and Ireland? Any lack of reciprocation is a fault on the other side, not something to emulate.

David Lindsay

"Yet citizens of Gibraltar, St, Helena and the Falklands have no vote here, even if resident in this country."

Yes, they have. And Saint Helenians, let me assure you, use it.

There is in fact no such category as a citizen of Saint Helena. They are British Citizens, plain and simple.

Liz Brown

Those British subjects who have lived outside of the UK for over 15 yrs and do not have a UK address cannot vote either - but it seems that Pakistanis living in Pakistan can vote.........

Richard Greene

Well since no actual checks are made on those registering to vote, or attending polling stations, you'll find that the world and his parrot can vote in British elections.

Dan Grover

Who cares what other countries do? I don't entirely understand how anyone interested in freedom could reasonably with-hold the vote from someone living in the UK, paying UK taxes. It's an irrelevance where they come from. If I'm from Surrey, should I be banned from voting in Hampshire council elections, even if I've lived there for ten years and pay council tax to them? For some reason you all seem to be getting jittery just because the migration is international rather than inter-country, but I don't understand the philosophical difference that makes situation different to the other.

SJH

Even more entertaining (and my apologies if someone has made this point above) a citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland can stand for the House of Commons. Neither has to be resident here, although Commonwealth citizens need to have the right to enter and remain without leave.

Beer Moth

Dan Grover

Honestly, I'm not jittery and I'll do my best not to get excited.

What you seem to be insisting upon, is that there is nothing, other than the act of paying tax, which should count, in the entitlement to have a say in the direction a nation takes.

There is very much more to being a national than that. If you can't see it, that doesn't mean it's not there.

Dan Grover

I don't doubt being "a national" requires more than paying taxes. What I don't see is why "being a national" is required for voting. Again, I don't know what it is about voting people into Westminster (rather than Hampshire council or whatever) that suddenly means you have to love tea and scones to do it. A Danish person living here is as equally affected by changes made as I am (I'm British). The "direction the nation takes" should be a result of the combined wisdom of its constituents, not an ambiguous and vague idea of what a "national" is.

Taxation without Representation

Having been legally resident in this country for more than a decade, taken enough interest in this country's affairs to read this website every day, and paid literally millions of pounds in tax to HMRC, it is not obvious to me why I should not be allowed to vote on matters that greatly affect me and my minor children (who are UK citizens).

djw2009

This is getting silly, Dan Grover. We should aim to maintain a high level of debate instead of all this. The reason why only a citizen votes is --duh!--you're choosing the government of your society. Get a five-year-old child to read that sentence and explain it to you.

>>>Having been legally resident in this country for more than a decade, taken enough interest in this country's affairs to read this website every day, and paid literally millions of pounds in tax to HMRC, it is not obvious to me why I should not be allowed to vote on matters that greatly affect me and my minor children (who are UK citizens).

Because it is the government of OUR society that is being elected. A government of any society has as its first duty the preservation of the country's independence and culture. Foreign workers are only permitted in the first place on the understanding they fit in with our culture; to give them the vote would give them the whiphand over the locals (as we can see). See Kuwait and the gulf states: people can come from outside to work, and are now in the majority in most of the gulf states, but to give them the vote would be tantamount to saying "Republic of the Philippines, annex us". The local Arabs would have no say over their own country. I have lived in several countries, but have never felt the need to attempt to undermine the locals in their own country.

denis cooper

I don't care how long you've lived here as an alien and paid taxes, which should be seen as no more than as a form of rent conferring no rights of ownership. Until you have committed yourself to this country by becoming a naturalised citizen then you should not be allowed to participate in its government. If you did commit yourself in that way, then you would acquire the full rights of citizenship, effectively joint ownership rights, at minimal cost. No citizenship, no vote should be the hard and fast rule, with no exceptions; moreover the existing body of citizens should decide whether they wish to increase their numbers through immigration, and if so they should determine how many new citizens they wish to welcome each year. This is our shared homeland, and we have the natural right to both possess it and control it.

JohnAnt

It seems absolutely perverse that the citizens of populous African and Asian Commonwealth countries are given the right to vote in Britain. The potential for gross distortion of the poll results is obvious. These are no longer British elections, but elections held on British soil.
Nor do I believe a resident EU citizen should necessarily qualify. The argument about paying income tax is not necessarily the clincher. We pay taxes wherever we happen to work. But we only have committed interests in a country where we have permanently settled, where our pension rights, business interests, investments and main property is located, and with whose sovereignty we identify ourselves. That means UK citizenship plus a lasting working residency, property, investments, tax payments over many years, 'le tout', to qualify for the vote.
Otherwise surely any resident who has a homeland and allegiance outside the UK is just an inverted non dom with a UK passport of convenience, and can - and possibly will - use a vote either frivolously or maliciously, against the interests of the Crown and people of the country.

This is not a small matter.

Dan Grover

djw2009: That you think the primary function of a government is to "preserve the culture" is baffling to me. My culture doesn't need my government to protect it - It did fine without it before, and it'll do fine after it's gone. Frankly, if a culture needs government intervention to keep it in existence, it's welcome to perish.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't take a patronising tone with me. For all your blustering, you've made no analysis of what I've said, simply stating your own opinion is correct. The idea that a foreigner isn't part of society just because they're a foreigner seems mad to me. And, again, you've not described why you see local elections and national elections differently (and I assume you do). What makes my voting in a Scottish council when I'm from London different to a Danish person voting for their local MP in Slough? Is it purely to do with the level of power in Westminster being higher than that in councils? And, likewise, would you forgive a Danish person for voting in local council elections?

djw2009

Dan Grover, it is because a London person voting in Slough (if there are any English people in Slough) is after all an English person moving about in his country. We have a national identity. [Why do I have to spell such obvious things out to you?]

Peter Crawford

@Dan Grover - You are doing the same thing. You think it is "mad" that a foreigner isn't considered worthy of a vote in another country's elections. You don't justify that view or give any rationale for it. You say you would appreciate a non-patronising tone. Srop being a blithering idiot then.

Taxation without Representation

djw, denis, JohnAnt -

You're confusing the state's almost unilateral right to assess any prospective immigrant's suitability for residency with whether, if the state has determined that it is in its interests to admit the applicant, his or her residency should include the vote.

You can demand - and who knows, someday you might get - a "hard and fast rule" of "no citizenship, no vote". If you really believe that the typical British slice of life is of a higher quality than that of many non-citizens who are conscientious and respectful, work hard and make a positive contribution to this country, however, then I'm afraid you need to wake up and smell the jellied eels.

It is a fair point that non-citizens should be presumed not to have the permanent commitment to Britain that the majority of British citizens have. It is an equally fair point, however, that anyone who lives in Britain has a stake in Britain, which entails both an obligation to make a contribution to it, and something more than no right at all to have a say in the laws that may profoundly affect him or his British children who are too young to vote.

I thought it was considered to be a serious problem for British democracy that not enough of the populace voted.

denis cooper

It may be a problem that not enough of the citizens vote, but that doesn't mean that non-citizens should be allowed to vote in an attempt to bump up the numbers; in any case it's our problem, and your children's problem, but not your problem.

I know nothing about you, and you may well be a thoroughly good person who would make an excellent and loyal citizen, maybe even superior in some ways to the average person who is already a citizen, but until you've applied for and obtained naturalisation as a citizen you remain a foreign resident and you shouldn't be voting in any of our elections or referendums at any level.

And you certainly shouldn't be complaining that you're not allowed to vote.

Tomas

No taxation without representation.

Tax paying law abiding people regardless of citizenship, if they are resident in the UK should have the right to vote.

Voting should be positively encouraged as a means of engagement, and people I know who are resident and have the vote do so as a privilege not to be squandered, unlike the vast majority of British Citizens.

Perhaps because they have come from countries that often deny them that right.

To deny the same rights to legitimate tax paying residents in the Britain would be regressive.

Dickie B.

As a half irish, half german, living in London, paying big taxes and benefitting the UK economy its absolutely correct that I should have the right to vote with no probation period.

Dan Grover

Peter Crawford: I did entirely justify it. I said that, on the basis that someone's life is equally affected by the laws of our land when they live here, whether they were born here or not, is my rationale for letting anyone who lives here over 18 vote.

What I haven't heard is a rationale that differentiates why a Londoner visiting Slough is different from a Dane visiting the UK. They're both outsiders, they can both leave whenever they want. The idea that "you're English" being a justification for anything (and that's true of any nationality) has yet to be justified.

And, incidentally, I don't understand why people on this website feel the need to so denigrate those who disagree with them. During this discussion I've remained entirely cordial, yet have been variously reffered to as "a blithering idiot", I've been told that a 5 year old could explain things to be and have been accused of being - ack - Nick Clegg; Especially as I have apparantly been chastised for not maintaining a high level of debate. I think some of you need to learn some English manners, for all your spurious and beulous references to "national identity" and "society".

Antonio Campanella

I agree with Mr Grover. I have lived in this country since I was 3 (I am now 27). My mother was born here, I was educated here, English was my 1st language, my taxes and national insurance expenses have always been to this country, so why can I not have a say who I think should be in charge and affect my life? I was born in Italy, all my documents (passport etc) are Italian and have been brought up with Italian traditions and cultural influences and do not see why I should have to renounce this to be able to vote.

denis cooper

@ Dan Grover -

"What I haven't heard is a rationale that differentiates why a Londoner visiting Slough is different from a Dane visiting the UK. They're both outsiders, they can both leave whenever they want."

1. Assuming that the Londoner is a UK citizen then legally he isn't an "outsider" in Slough, but has equal status as a UK citizen with UK citizens resident in Slough, while the Dane remains an alien whether he is in London or Slough or anywhere else in the UK.

2. The Londoner who is a UK citizen can normally not only leave Slough and return to Slough as he pleases, he can also leave the UK and return to the UK as he pleases, and cannot be expelled from the UK, while the Dane can normally leave the UK but has no right of re-entry or protection from deportation, except as ordained by the UK Parliament and government.

This was actually one of the distinctions between citizens or "nationals", and non-citizens or "aliens", recognised by the 1963 Protocol 4 attached to the European Convention on Human Rights:

"ARTICLE 2

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety for the maintenance of 'ordre public', for the prevention of crime, for the protection of rights and freedoms of others.

4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposes in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society."

"ARTICLE 3

1. No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national.

2. No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national."

But:

"ARTICLE 4

Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited."

so the Dane would have to be expelled as an individual, not as part of a collective expulsion.

Note how this Protocol correctly accepted that a person has a country which is "his own", "the territory of the State of which he is a national"; or, as I would put it, a homeland which he shares with his fellow citizens.

I have nothing against Danes, but a Dane remains a Dane and does not become a UK citizen or national simply by living in the UK for a period, however long, nor by paying taxes, nor by making a useful contribution to the UK economy, nor in any other way except by being naturalised as a UK citizen; until that happens his own country, his homeland, is Denmark, not the UK.

I would also point out Article 16 in the original Convention:

"Nothing in Articles 10, 11, and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens."

those Articles relating respectively to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom from discrimination.

Somebody who a Danish citizen, not a UK citizen, has no automatic right to engage in political activity in the UK, even if he is allowed to do so on a concessionary basis; he should remember that even if he is treated in a warm and friendly and fair fashion by the people of the UK he is not actually part of their "demos", which underpins their democracy; in fact he would be well advised to be concern himself with the affairs of his own country rather than theirs, or at least proceed cautiously on the clear understanding that he is a foreigner who is in the UK on suffrance as agreed by the citizens through their Parliament and government.

denis cooper

Antonio, I expect you can guess my reaction without my having to spell it out.

Verity

Dan Grover, Why not address this question to American Immigration and note down the answer carefully for future reference? See, the woman is not a British citizen. She has no birthright to vote in our country. Assuming she has no criminal record - not that the corrupt Nigerian employees at the Home Office would check - she would be free to apply for British citizenship. That she hasn't done so would tell us that she isn't that interested in voting here.

Antonio Campanella

@ Denis,

So the fact that I do not "renounce" my Italian heritage (The thing that makes me what I am) and "become" British is what stops me to say who I think should be in charge of a country where I have lived the majority of my life and conitinue to support via taxes etc?

I give up! At least I have a quick answer for those who constantly knock on my door trying to drum up votes while slandering the oppostion (Who do exactly the same!)

"Sorry. Can't vote. Goodbye!"

Richard H

The Queen is the Head of State for New Zealand. It is still Commonwealth because you could say they still do not have full 'independence' from Britain - they are not a republic (but this is an historical issue - colonies, and too complicated to fully explain here...). Therefore, why are people saying Commonwealth citizens should not be able to vote, general or otherwise elections?

In my school I grew up singing the UK National Anthem. How many Britons can sing in-full God Save the Queen. Even at sports events, when the anthem is sung the players don't even bother moving their lips... Yet that is abhorrent behaviour to me.

Many people in NZ are migrants or from the UK or have UK ancestry.

The NZ political system is historically and fundamentally British.

The remarks above make me think - it is not so much Commonwealth citizens the problem but the colour of their skin (and religion) which people are adverse to.

As a New Zealander who has lived here for 3 decades and contributed in many ways to this country, I see UK as home, all my friends and family are here (and they're British,) but I have not renounced my Kiwi passport - yet, by many posts here, I should not be allowed to vote. (NZ is far more British in feel and culture than even Australia or Canada.)

I abide by the UK laws, I could probably pass the citizenship test with flying colours (better than some UK born and breds for centuries could...) yet I am considered a non-entity by some - (they'd love disenfranchise me!?)

If the few posts here suggest - maybe Britain should never have had colonies and taken the land as their own and profited nicely from these colonies and ensured the rights of UK migrants/colonists/'pioneers' in these colonies etc.

The 'great' British Empire could not have been if it wasn't for colonialism and to say that Commonwealth citizens have no say in UK is outrageous. It smacks of hypocrisy. Look at how the Empire worked and you'll understand the fundamental reason why we are able to vote in the UK.

Maybe all Britons residing and voting around the world should be banned, make their way back to the UK permanently, and vice-versa and then we can all have parity? Fair's fair?

Partition the world back to how it was and stop globalisation? Separate everyone by race, religion and colour - if you want total xenophobia.

How many Britons reside permanently overseas and vote locally?
Do they have a right to anything in these countries? (like South Africa for far too long - only the whites could vote. Thank goodness those days are done with.)

The devil is in the detail - the current system is brilliant - democracy as was instilled in many Commonwealth constitutions has had great benefits to the world. Part of the treaties of the Empire to colonies instilled this democratic ideals (not perfect and many fights to break the white hypocrisy - Check out the Treaty of Waitangi. Not great - but just as the Empire imposed their rules and trade, so should Commonwealth citizens reap the rewards of being colonies imposed by the British as written in the treaties.)

Richard H

ps -"white hypocracy" = I mean - policies were made in the past with so many treaties that purported to be democratic etc. and the Queen/King as sovereign etc. i.e. 'colonialism', but to gain these benefits you had to be white so even the indigenous were 2nd or 3rd class citizens (or nothing at all,) but this is ancient history for most Commonwealth countries today. I think some Britons need to get to grips with what having had an Empire means and the implications - it is now a fairer system and a two-way street, not imposed by one group anymore, as it should be, as written in the constitutions and treaties with the UK.

Afterall - my family are white, but should this matter if I don't care to change my passport? Does this make me less of a citizen or less important in the things that affect my family as a whole or as individuals?

Does the Commonwealth not include Great Britain then?

Willem Groot

My wife and I went to the polling station yesterday. We didn't receive a voting card but were assured in a telephone conversation with our local council that yes, we were on the electoral roll and yes, we could just go to the polling station and vote. We were indeed on the electoral roll but had a letter behind our names that indicated we were not allowed to vote in UK Parliamentary elections. We have lived in the UK since 1996 and two of children and now one grandchild live in the UK as well. We file a tax return every year, pay national insurance contributions and all other taxes that apply to UK citizens and the new laws and policies of the new government will affect us just as much as every one else who resides in Britain ... but we are not allowed to vote. I do agree that you should be a resident for a couple of years before being allowed to vote but I would have thought that 14 years would be quite sufficient.

Danish Housewife

My Danish husband recieved a ballot card and was able to vote for the first time in the 10 years that he has lived in the UK. Now we are wondering if this was a mistake...and if so, how many similar mistakes have been made during this ballot?

moaney older woman

My son's Australian girlfriend (working in London under "skilled" visa) was given the chance to vote by people coming round the London rented flats. They said she could vote because of being a Commonwealth citizen. Not many of you, nor politicians, seem to be interested/concerned with our wonderful historic and royal links with the commonwealth countries. Our friends from the Commonwealth may be permitted a voting opportunity (though perhaps not all knowing about it), yet their chance to work and live here is being destroyed while people from countries with whom we have had no historic link nor relationship can come in without hindrance. Has anybody asked what Her Majesty thinks of it? What education about the Commonwealth and its cultural links with us is being given to our schoolchildren and to EU incomers and to politicians? I don't think that EU people living here should complain they can't vote here at this stage. (Trips back for them to vote in Europe are not that lengthy?). In UK we and the EU incomers are not permitted to share something of the EU cultures because organisations such as BBC, Sky, Virgin refuse to show us any free European language (or even subtitled) new, nor films, nor documentaries (unlike in Aus where these are provided free for all to see on terrestrial TV). So how can we start becoming integrated with EU peoples even when we want to? Why do politicians decide who can and cannot work here made without an in-depth consideration of the historical international linkages such as between the Commonwealth and the UK? They decide this using dodgy methods; such as by wanting cheapest workers who can be advertised for solely overseas by gangmasters/"recruitment agencies". The latter "big businesses" were worshipped by the Labour government (what a nerve to use the word "Labour" when our own people are not permitted to labour or even see any jobs advertised!) It is a lie that farmers and food factories cannot find such workers locally. It should be made illegal for employers and agencies to advertise overseas only and fail to post their jobs ads nationally at proper Job Centres, in local papers, and obvious local locations.

Helen Italy

As a British citizen who lives, works and pays taxes in Italy I cannot vote in Italian elections... It's the same as the Danish living in the UK.

Cristina

I have just read through all the comments made on this forum regarding the right of non-British residents to vote in the UK's General Elections.

I'm Spanish, married to a British man, and have brought up (our) 3 British children. I have lived in the UK for 28 years, have studied, trained and worked in this country, and, although I have the same rights as any British person, I am still not allowed to vote in the General Elections. On the other hand, year after year, I get large packages from the Spanish government giving me 'everything I need' to vote in Spain. In the same way that it is incongruous, even immoral, that anyone, of whichever nationality, may have the power of decision over what happens in a country where they don't live and work, the reverse is also the case.

I have a Spanish passport and have no intention of changing it for a British one - not because I am nationalistic or patriotic, but because my new passport would be telling a lie. I happen to have been born in Spain and my 22 formative years there (it could have been anywhere else), made me who I am now to a very great extent. It is just a fact, not just for me, but for most people, that your culture of origin is probably the biggest influence in one's life. In my case, it is Spain and my passport states this. That's me on a piece of paper.

Before anyone tells me to go back to 'my country' if I don't approve of the 'British ways' (i.e. no vote without citizenship), I'll say that I would never do so without a pretty major reason (despite of all the attractions?? that Spain seems to hold to so many resident Brits there). My origins are there, but my home, my family and my friends are here.

Can anyone say with complete honesty that it is fair and justified for, say British long-term residents in another country, to vote in the UK where they may spend only the odd short spell, and where, most likely, they don't have a home anymore?

I see so clearly my right, as well as others' in the same situation, wherever they may live, to participate and have a say in our country of residence - it is just plain, simple common sense.

In my book, a good citizen is someone who cares about the people he/she lives with, shares a country with, and who does his/her best to contribute to everyone's welfare. It has very little to do with a specific nationality, allegiance, loyalty or flag, nor with any 'official approval'.

There are many who, like me, try to be good citizens without all of the above. By being denied the right to vote, we are also denied the power to make life better for all.

Isn't it time that we stopped being treated as pariahs and were given the vote?

John

Another absurdity is that UK citizens living abroad can only vote in a UK election if their application is countersigned by another UK citizen living in the same country who is unrelated to the applicant and prepared to put down their passport details. As I happen not to know anyone like this, I have been disenfranchised for the five years since I left the UK, and have no vote in my country of residence either.

jana

how funny. just tried to find out how to apply for british citizenship. got wound up by the fact that i've been married to uk citizen, lived in uk, paid my taxes for 10 years and they want me to pay £780 to buy my rght to vote. i know this discussion is a year old. I should have the right to vote without having to spend this obscene amount of cash?

Jonny

citizens of nealry all commonwealth realms aswell as irish citizens are allowed the vote.
the latter of which is bothe due to proximity and that irish people being the largest ethnic group in britain, 10 % of which.