Good or bad thing? Costa Brava pensioners voting Tory or young Remainers who will demand change? https://www.theguardian.com/politic...kely-to-win-voting-right-before-next-election
That word 'ex-pats'. Immigrants is what they are. Outsiders who fail to integrate and speak in their foreign language together on the bus.
Harsh, but warranted. Though Brits abroad are not just those cultivating thermonuclear tans on the Costa Brava. There are Brits in every European Country, working, studying, enjoying the local food and like Jim Ratcliffe and other Brexit Barstids, avoiding Brexit.
Ex-pat and immigrant are both accurate labels, but a headline of "three million immigrants set to vote at next election" has a wholly different tone to it. The terms have different applications and uses and are definitely not synonyms. Don't disagree on the lack of integration. If you move to another country, you should be willing to integrate and learn the language. If you're not willing to do so, you shouldn't move there. I completely understand that not everyone can or will achieve fluency in a foreign tongue, but you can at least put the effort in and a reach a basic level of competency.
Better that ex-pats get to vote than 16 year olds. Not sure where I stand on 16 year old ex-pats though
I can't think of any migrant living here permanently who doesn't speak English to a reasonable level. You need to speak it in order to function - to be able to deal with the authorities. To go shopping in Tescos. To get on the bus. To get work. Everything. It's a bit of a myth really, this thing about migrants not speaking English, except maybe in the first few months here. BUT When you're on the bus with someone who speaks the same language, of course you're going to converse fluently in your native language rather than try and struggle to understand each other in English with a vocabulary of a couple of hundred basic words only.
Also on the subject of language: Immigrant (bad) Vs Ex-pat (good) Vs Migrant (medium) What @Arakel called different "tones". 'Ex-pats drown in the channel' is another headline we're unlikely to see. Different words. Different gusts of hot air. But it seems blindingly obvious to me and I hope to you, dear reader, that all three are exactly the same. All with the same worth - One human life. The same worth that you and I have. That ought to be the number one and overriding consideration.
Well, hold on. Just a moment ago you were criticizing immigrants in Spain who don't integrate. So now the Brits in Spain aren't a problem if they can speak Spanish or speak in English on a Spanish bus? I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Certainly true from the UK's perspective, but not to the Spanish in Spain. The latter seems a more appropriate when considering integration (or refusal thereof).
Indeed, but I’m not sure why we are focusing on Spain in particular. Australia has the most British ex-pats. And as far as the U.K. election goes - which is what prompted this thread - we are talking about emigrants.
I disagree with your characterization of these terms. Tone comes from how they are used in the sentence, not the word itself. Each of them can be implied to be good or bad (or neither) depending on how the writer uses them. I certainly have no issue with someone describing me as an immigrant. It's factually true.
Broadly I agree but the term “immigrant” certainly carries with it significant political baggage in this country at least, and therefore the word would often be deliberately chosen.
Good point, I had the EU in mind, but you are right, the big numbers are in the former UK colonies. Seems bizarre to me. If you emigrate for life, choose never to pay UK taxes again, why should you get a vote? Scottish people, outside Scotland, in the UK didn’t even get an Indyref vote. **** me, this will be loads of bizarre, gun owning, Britain has changed since I grew up, I wouldn’t recognise it now, that’s why I left colonials putting the Tories back in.
You shouldn't. For me, 16 year olds have a better claim to it (sorry Lloyd). The reality is that I don't know what it's like to live in the UK anymore. The UK I left behind is long dead. What's it's like today is a complete unknown to me, as far as day to day living goes. I can get the broad strokes from the media, but it's not even close to the experience of actually living in the UK. That's why I haven't voted since leaving the country. It doesn't seem fair to inflict my vote on the resident population when I can't experience or judge or suffer the results myself. Frankly, I think it's fairer to let un-naturalized permanent residents vote than ex-pats.
This actually raises something I haven't considered before: given that we have a FPTP system based on geographical representation, how exactly would ex-pat votes be assigned? Last place you lived before leaving? Where you were born? Never bothered looking into it because, as mentioned above, I didn't think it was fair to vote so I never cared to look into the datails.
From a very quick scan of the draft Bill it looks like previous registration/residence (ie former address) is the usual expectation. EDIT: yes, this is what the Guardian article says: ‘British people living overseas for more than 15 years would be able to vote in the last constituency in which they were registered or provide proof of past residency. For younger voters who emigrated before they could vote this could include school documentation, P45s or P60s’.
There's already a first definition of the words. Expats have moved Scottish temporarily and intend to return home Immigrants have moved and intend on staying Expats who are temporarily abroad for a few years should get to view in general elections. People who have already been abroad 5 years of pudding it. Over 15 is ridiculous and can only be described as gerrymandering
It's pretty tricky to know how these people will vote though. And that assumes they can be arsed to do it in the first place or aren't going to decline the opportunity like Arakel on principle.
Indeed. I think the question is simply one of democracy - ie. who gets to vote and why? People should be allowed the vote because they contribute to a society and they benefit from/suffer from the decisions made by its government. Is there any other fair reason to be included? If you live 8000 miles away and only pop back periodically to stock up on marmite and proper yorkshire tea, then I don't think that entitles you to have a say in how the government taxes, enacts laws and runs the services that affect the rest of us.
Yep, if we can only get 30% odd out for a local election here, seems unlikely more would seek out their vote abroad. But some will and they may be in the hundreds of thousands.
I think FPTP is going to limit their chances to swing things too much. Without knowing where in the UK people have emigrated from over the past 20-30 years it's hard to know if the opposite is a genuine possibility but my gut feeling is the geographic spread and their political preferences will be pretty wide. Plus given the constituency link how many, say, Labour supporters formerly of SW Herts are going to jump all the bureaucratic hurdles to register to vote knowing it's going to have zero effect on the outcome? Same with Tory supporters formerly of many London constituencies. Other countries seem to do it without much controversy too.
The old buffer who pushed for this, Harry Shindler, fair play to him, he did his bit in the war and obviously had a bit of spirit. He also chose to live the last 40 years of his life in Italy. Some of his ire appears to be Brexit inspired. He took a case forward to the European Court of Justice about being denied a Brexit vote. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-brexit-challenge-by-97-year-old-ww2-veteran
Shame it doesn't stop you inflicting your opinions on the resident population! Please note I would put a smiling or winking face emoji here but I don't know how
You could always register and vote in behalf of a 16/17 yo I believe should have a vote. However you will almost certainly end up on a list if you state you're a grown man from abroad seeking an underaged teenager
In my opinion if you're a UK citizen of sound mind and 18 years or older then you should be entitled to vote in a UK general election. It's up to our government how ex-pats / non doms etc are taxed. They should be, maybe a similar system to our friends across the pond. I feel that as a UK citizen albeit non-resident, you still benefit from the plusses and minuses of that citizenship and therefore should have representation in determining what those plusses and minuses are. Topping up the local income tax to a level that you would have been charged had you been UK resident should negate the advantage of moving out for tax purposes and then sticking your oar in to maintain that advantage. Perhaps we should set up one or a number of virtual constituencies, depending on the number of votes applicable to compare equally to real constituencies, specifically for non-resident UK Citizens. They deserve a voice and representation but maybe not in a way that sways the election of a local MP. Alternatively you could weight a person's vote according to the total tax they'd paid in the last election term but I suspect that would be hugely unpopular and complex.
