XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y, uk.radio.amateur
From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm
On 13/10/2019 02:25, ZakJames wrote:
>
>
> "JNugent" wrote in message
> news:h0f9f4F86o7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 12/10/2019 23:47, ZakJames wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "JNugent" wrote in message
>>> news:h0f0boF6deiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 12/10/2019 16:35, tim... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
>>>>> news:5801d4258edave@davenoise.co.uk...
>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>> €€ Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> I still have a legitimate interest, mate. And if there's another
>>>>>>> Referendum I'll be voting in it again, same as before, just like
>>>>>>> everyone else who voted Leave - plus not a few former Remainers
>>>>>>> who've
>>>>>>> seen the light over the last 3 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly, most the polls seem to show the opposite has happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> very marginally
>>>>>
>>>>> and to less than the extent that Remain was in the lead before the
>>>>> last vote
>>>>>
>>>>> and you know what campaigning did to that lead.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wonder what the average UK voter feels about those who have fled the
>>>>>> country to avoid paying taxes being allowed to vote?
>>>>>
>>>>> I for one think that they've got a bloody cheek complaining about
>>>>> being disenfranchised - they chose to be disenfranchised.
>>>>
>>>> That's not as straightforward as some people seem to think.
>>>>
>>>> An ex-pat Brit living in (say) Spain might have a vote in local
>>>> elections in their area of residence, but unless they take pout
>>>> Spanish citizenship they won't be allowed to vote in Spain's
>>>> parliamantary elections (and quite right too).
>>>
>>>> But unless they're allowed to vote in UK Parliamentary elections -
>>>> for life - they are disenfranchised from having any say in the
>>>> government of anywhere. And that cannot be right. They are not
>>>> second-class people who should have fewer rights than others.
>>>
>>> That€€€s always been the case with those who choose not
>>> to take up citizenship in the place they choose to move
>>> to. They are in fact second class people by that choice
>>> and rightly so imo.
>>
>> "That's always been the case".
>
>> But it shouldn't be.
>
> That€€€s very arguable.
>
>> There is no case to be made for disenfranchising anyone.
>
> There is for those who choose to be in a particular country
> for a while but who have no intention of staying there forever.
> Why should those who choose to move to say Spain for the
> lower prices and better weather have any say on how that
> country is run ?€€ Let alone on more important issues like
> whether the Basque separatists should be allowed to have
> their own country or be part of the EU ?
>
>> What is the principled difference between a UK citizen who works
>> abroad (eg, a Foreign Office employee) and a UK citizen who retires
>> abroad?
>
> Nothing with regard to their right to vote in the UK is concerned
> unless they never plan to return to the UK again. But neither should
> have any say in how the country they are working in or have retired
> to does things either imo. Both are free to decide if how that country
> does things is to their liking, but not free to vote on any changes
> that they would like to see there.
That's your opinion. The idea of a tax-paying, law-abiding, citizen who
isn't allowed to vote anywhere in the world must surely be anathema to
anyone correctly considering the situation.
Are you sure you aren't just fearful of how most of them would vote?
> I don€€€t even agree with say poms who choose to migrate to somewhere
> like Australia or NZ being able to proclaim that those places should do
> things the way the UK does things benefits or politics wise either.
Neither do I. And that has [precisely nothing whatever to do with the
issue of whether they should be denied a vote.
> They
> should decide if they like the way things are done before they migrate
> to another country, not try to change them after they have migrated.
Quite so, though of course, it has nothing to do with the topic.
>
>>>> Because UK Parliamentary representation is so tied to local
>>>> geography, ex-pats need to be either (a) limited to a vote as though
>>>> still living at their last UK address (which they might even still
>>>> own), or (b) placed within a new non-geographical constituency for
>>>> British citizens not currently resident in the UK. There would
>>>> probably have to be a multiplicity of those because there are
>>>> millions of ex-pats. These constituencies could even be based on
>>>> broad regions of the UK, each with an electorate size of the target
>>>> average size as aimed for by the Boundary Commission and equivalents.
>>>
>>> I did notice that Italians emigrants are allowed to vote in Italian
>>> elections.
>>> Not sure what happens about which constituency they get to vote in.
>
>> Perhaps we (the UK) should make enquiries.
>
> There isnt likely to be any very satisfactory way of doing that.
> Even say being allowed to vote in the constituency that they
> had previously lived in doesn€€€t make a lot of sense given
> that as migrants they clearly chose to leave there and with
> such tiny constituencies as the UK has, it could just have
> been where there happened to be an affordable place to
> buy or rent that they happened to find appealing etc or
> a job that happened to have a vacancy at the time.
That's a view and it has some legitimacy.
What has no legitimacy at all is a view that such people should be
denied a parliamantary vote altogether, like some sort of second-class
citizen.
No taxation without representation.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
