Restricted franchise in EU referendum would make a mockery of democracy
|
Version 0 of 1. That UK citizens not currently resident in the UK will not be eligible to vote in a referendum on British membership of the EU if they have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years seems absurd (Report, 25 May). I am on that borderline and will miss out. The UK decided to be part of the EU and, like hundreds of thousands of other UK citizens, I took the opportunity that that decision offered to live and work elsewhere in the EU as soon as I finished studying. As a classic economic migrant, I found better job opportunities for my specific skills in a different part of the bloc, in my case Austria. We Brits in Europe surely understand as much as any other UK citizen what EU membership means. We understand the complexities of the relationship and have a greater stake than any other British citizen in the outcome. An “out” vote would severely disrupt our lives, in an economic sense and a private sense. If it was a question of deciding what should happen only inside the UK – a referendum, for example, on wind power – then maybe you could argue that a 15-year time barrier would make sense. You could argue that I might have lost touch with domestic UK politics. But this is about Britain’s relationship with the EU. There is absolutely no reason to exclude me. Downing Street says: “No Briton under the age of 58 has had their say on the UK’s membership of the European Union.” I’m 35. Cameron must give me and fellow Brits living in other parts of the EU a say in our own future. Anything else would be an absolute mockery of democracy.Christian CumminsVienna, Austria • I am a Danish citizen but have lived in the UK for 40 years. When I arrived, there were restrictions on British citizens still in force or within recent memory. You could, for instance, not hold a bank account abroad, so I decided to keep my Danish citizenship. To change allegiance now would feel like a betrayal of my heritage. I decided to keep my Danish citizenship. To change allegiance now would feel like a betrayal of my heritage Thanks to Britain’s EU membership I have and enjoy the same rights, duties and privileges as other UK residents. The main exception is that I cannot vote in parliamentary elections. This has never bothered me, as I have little empathy with the first-past-the-post system, which in Denmark we replaced with a PR system in 1920. However, I can and do vote in local and European elections. I am disappointed, if not greatly surprised, by the news that I and 1.5 million people like me will be denied a vote in the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. Clearly I, and my fellow Europeans who live here, have a vested interest, as do those UK citizens who live in other EU countries. I imagine that many, or most, in both categories would vote in favour of Britain staying in Europe, and the Euro-secessionists are obviously worried that we might swing the outcome. I hope that Angus Robertson’s views (Opinion, 25 May) will be supported by other opposition leaders, if not by Nigel Farage – does Mrs Farage get to vote, or is she still a German citizen? It should be a simple matter to extend the franchise in the referendum to all voters registered to vote in European elections. Surely this would be a fairer and more respectful approach.Anders Ditlev ClausagerMoseley, Birmingham • Angus Robertson of the SNP makes a good case when he argues that EU nationals living in the UK should be allowed to vote in a referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU. As he rightly says, “If a vote for the UK to leave the EU was successful, it could have deeply damaging consequences on the lives of those people who have chosen to live and work here, and on their families.” Will he do his best to ensure that the same logic is applied to any future referendum on Scottish independence? It is surely the case that there would be particularly “damaging consequences” for native-born Scots “who have chosen to work and live” elsewhere in the UK if there was a vote for Scotland to leave the union. Dr David MervinEmeritus reader in politics, University of Warwick • Angus Robertson argues that, among other things, 16-year-olds being able to marry and join the armed forces are reasons to let 16- and 17-year-olds vote. In fact, marrying or joining the forces below the age of 18 requires parental consent, which is not a sign of great maturity and autonomy. Moreover, Mr Robertson fails to note that those who will be 16 or 17 during the EU referendum will also be obliged to stay in school or training until they are 18. In effect, they will not be fully exposed to the working world. Finally, his argument that we should enfranchise 16- and 17-year-olds to “ensure that everyone has a fair say on our future” would, by the same logic, be a reason to allow 11-year-olds to vote as well. Having just turned 18 this month (and having voted in the general election), I hope my critique will not be seen as a product of any self-interest in preventing the enfranchisement of those younger than me.Carter BraceEgham, Surrey • I am irritated, but not surprised, by the announcement that my French wife of more than 50 years will not be able to vote in the EU referendum. What shocks me more is the disenfranchisement of British subjects who have lived abroad for over 15 years, a category that includes my son. In fact, he lost his right to vote as soon as his name no longer appeared on our local electoral roll. This situation contrasts with what happens to French citizens. Even if they have no property in France, they can still vote for 12 senators and 11 members of the national assembly. Though the French two-round electoral system can go wrong, as in 2002 when the far-right came ahead of the socialists in the first round, at least it shows that no French government can rule through a single first-past-the-post system which only gives them 37% of the votes cast. There are dangers of course in any system, especially if proportionality is carried too far – as shown notably in Israel – but this week’s announcement merely underscores the increasing democratic deficit in the UK.Christopher ToddEmeritus professor of French, University of Leeds • Angus Robertson is entirely right to say that young voters need a say on their EU future. He cites the case of the Scottish independence referendum, in which 16- and 17-year-olds took a full, effective and responsible part. That reflects my experience across England and Wales of speaking to many groups of 16- and 17-year-olds, who are at least as well informed about political choices as any other age group. And this is a critical decision about their future, with a potential impact stretching for decades, which greatly enhances the case. It is therefore extremely disappointing that David Cameron has ruled out their participation, together with saying that his referendum bill will exclude the 1 million EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK. I urge your readers to sign the Young Greens’ petition, launched last week, for votes at 16 in this referendum. And I suggest they write to their MP to present the obvious case for allowing all members of our community, who have made their lives here and contribute in a myriad of ways, to have their say in this momentous decision. This bill will be coming before a Commons in which Cameron has a wafer-thin majority, one that already looks to be dissolving over the Human Rights Act. The strength of the case for a fair vote needs to be made, and could win out with a strong campaign.Natalie BennettGreen party leader |