This is a completely disingenuous question, as you well know, but no, obviously not. Because :
A) Anyone who buys anything in the UK pays VAT
B) VAT can be reclaimed by foreign residents
C) VAT is not tracked at a consumer level by HMRC
If you
A) Choose to live abroad for an extended period
And
B) Do not pay taxes to the UK
Then you should not be allowed a say in how the country is run.
Its like if the person who used to own your house started telling you what colour you had to paint your kitchen walls
Edit: someone was itching for an argument and then blocked me, great banter
Such an insincere question, name a figure so that you can attack the figure and not the principle
If she pays income tax, NI, capital gains tax, or similar than fair enough, but if they are living abroad long term, working abroad, paying tax abroad then you shouldn't have a say about how its taxes are spent
Edit : blocked because they disagree with me instead of actually answering the question, hilarious
No, it's an absolutely sincere question, I'm asking for an actual number.
Your position is indefensible in practice, which is why I am trying to lead you to realise that step by step.
Because whatever number you come up with will be ridiculous.
It would either allow people to meet it easily on paper, or be a number that many people wouldn't achieve even whilst living and working here.
But how do you know they don't pay any tax at all? There are lots of ways that money gets contributed to the exchequer. A holiday here once a year produces tax revenue.
As i said in another comment, trying to drill down into absolute minutae to turn it into a bun fight instead of actually discussing the principle of the issue
It's like asking about how many pounds green energy subsidy should be in response to someone saying that they think green energy should be subsidised
You don't have to pay to be a citizen.
Unless you're also ok with all the immigrants to the UK paying their tax obligations to their home countries rather than the UK too?
Oh fuck off, she's a citizen of our country even if she doesn't live here. Talking about taking voting rights away from our citizens is a slippery slope. Thank fuck you are not calling the shots.
Do you also think I should be allowed to vote in the general election because I pay taxes here even though I'm an immigrant and therefore can only vote in local elections?
They were saying expats shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless they pay taxes because they shouldn’t be allowed to influence how others’ tax is spent; I’m wondering if they also think that people who do pay tax should be allowed to vote because they *should* be allowed to influence how their tax is spent
If you are trying to trap me into generally saying that if you dont pay tax then you shouldn't vote, then no it doesn't apply
But in this specific case where a citizen has chosen to live abroad for an extended period of time then i don't see why they should be able to vote to shape the future of a country that they neither contribute to nor live in
I'm not, I was just wondering if you think people who pay tax should be allowed to vote on what is done with it i.e. extending the vote beyond what it currently is
So it’s completely reasonable to not be able to vote if you don’t meet that criteria? Therefore the UK could change its criteria to require residence if that’s what people actually want.
They are advocating to remove votes of those who are not impacted by their vote.
These are people who could all vote for everyone over the age of 10 to be whipped 6 times every day. Except they don't live here so they don't face the result of this vote.
Is that fair? Is that democracy?
Do you think that people should be able to vote for changes to a country that is not theirs? Changes that will not have any impact on them or their lives?
I mean, this is a topic that has nuance, sure, but it is disingenuous for you to suggest they are just removing votes to prevent democracy.
If i understand the article correctly before the recent rule change she would not have been able to vote.
I believe people who are both citizens and residents should be the ones allowed to vote. Personally I would go stricter, but I do think this is a reasonable and non-contreversial threshold, as was the case until recently enough. what if these 100,000 they mentioned were voting on introducing conscription? or whatever other topic people may be less agreeable with? they're not going to be paying the price. same is true with any topic.
Hard disagree on this particular piece of gerrymandering.
If you've fucked out elsewhere for 15+ years (and especially for more than half your life) you **don't** get a say in how the UK is run - you've already chosen to live somewhere that's not the UK.
What are the odds most of the grey haired Costa del Sol bunch are the targets for this, and most will vote conservative?
Firstly, access to the NHS is based on residency. I moved to Australia last year, I have to get travel insurance when I travel home. Which is fine, because I'd rather get treated in Australia any day.
Secondly, the UK pension system is a hybrid one incorporating public and employer/private-based elements. It's got nothing to do with citizenship. Retirees abroad get access to pensions because they've built up an entitlement; that's it. There are non-citizens living abroad pulling down a state pension from HMRC because they lived in the UK for ten years or more.
As I explained in the ukpol thread on this, retirees entitled to a British state pension in many countries (not Spain) get a pretty raw deal anyway. Anyone in Canada or Australia gets no uprating whatsoever, so their state pension actually decreases in value with time and is eroded by inflation - like a reverse triple lock. There's also no counting of UK state pension contributions towards local pension entitlements like the Canadian Pension Plan.
Unless you give people the choice to opt out of NICs and building up an entitlement to the state pension altogether, it would be profoundly unjust to just . . . not pay a state pension to anyone who retires abroad.
tl;dr - it has nothing to do with benefits
> Firstly, access to the NHS is based on residency. I moved to Australia last year, I have to get travel insurance when I travel home. Which is fine, because I'd rather get treated in Australia any day.
You're right, but if you move back to the UK you're immediately eligible for NHS treatment as long as you're a citizen and you "intend to remain in the UK". Non-citizens need to have lived in the UK for at least 3 continuous months, but that doesn't apply to us, "intention" is enough. You may need to provide evidence like a UK address and bank account, although I just recently moved back to the UK from Germany and have never been asked for evidence. (How would the NHS even know I lived abroad previously? That's not something they ask anybody...)
>There are non-citizens living abroad pulling down a state pension from HMRC because they lived in the UK for ten years or more.
Incorrect. It's a minimum of 10 years qualifying National Insurance contributions, not residency based.
Australia and New Zealand both count years contributing to the UK state pension towards qualifying for super.
You **also** have to have been paying local contributions to super for a period, but that's massively reduced for UK citizens.
Sorry mate but that's really not how super works, at least in Australia (I know very little about the NZ system).
Super is like a cross between a LISA and a SIPP. My balance on arriving in Australia was $0. There's no entitlement to anything and I don't have to qualify for it; I just have to work to add more money to my pot. It's not at all like the state pension. For one, it's solvent and won't bankrupt the country in two decades.
The Commonwealth has a means-tested age pension, which is not based on entitlements, although there is a minimum residency requirement. Super was introduced to slowly reduce reliance on the age pension for Aussie retirees.
Yeah, NZ citizen, not Aussie.
In NZ the "state pension" is called Super(annuation).
You guys have a state pension and the mandatory private pension - the mandatory private pension part is called Super. Because you cunts are weird.
Doesn't change the point though - there's an awful lot of commonwealth countries with similar social security arrangements.
If you are a citizen of this country you should have the right to vote. The moment we begin to rescind voting rights from one group the easier it becomes to do so for other groups. This type of thing always starts with something where most people can ‘see the point’, but once the precedence is set it becomes a slippery slope. Best to ensure every citizen has the right to vote than begin the process of picking and choosing who is allowed to have a say in our democracy.
And yet in a couple of years I won't be able to vote in New Zealand elections any more.
I've never been able to vote in German elections.
This is despite being a citizen of both of these countries (and the UK).
Thank you. I think in the uk all sorts of changes in voting (voting age and voter id for example) get lumped in with gerrymandering. I think the issue is the sort of gerrymandering that happens all the time in the us doesn’t really happen hear (odd shaped constituencies that exclude voters)
I think there are better arguments to be made for certain groups of voters to not vote. Not saying I feel strongly these people should be enfranchised, but I think it's always better to err on the side of more people having the vote than fewer. Cause making arguments for certain groups to not vote always causes more problems than it's worth.
Maybe, but there's a very strong argument in this specific case that people who have chosen to **not engage with a democracy** (by living in another country for an *extended* period of time) shouldn't have a say in how that democracy is run.
>not engage with a democracy
As Brexit showed, sometimes British democracy has a way of reaching out and fucking up the lives of people who left anyway. British affairs do not stop at the border.
Looking forward to voting from abroad for the first time.
I don’t think you can say that moving abroad is a choice to “not engage with democracy”. In fact they’re doing the opposite: they are bothering to engage despite the extra steps involved and may well have voted during their first 15 years abroad.
People who stay in the UK don’t do it to make sure they don’t miss the next general election…
Should I have no say in how the care system would work for my parents, how visas would affect me and my family moving back to the UK, pension contributions and inheritance?
Hard disagree on this ignorant perspective.
If you’re a citizen of a country you will always have a right to have a say in how your nation is run, regardless of where you live. Many of us with multiple citizenships have family and friends who still live there and we want to use our right to vote to ensure that the best people are doing the job and looking after all those people.
>you will always have a right to have a say in how your nation is run
I mean that's patently untrue.
I don't have that right in New Zealand after 3 years overseas.
I also don't have that right in Germany.
I'm a tri-national with citizenship in all 3 countries.
Your literal comment was:
>If you’re a citizen of a country you will always have a right to have a say in how your nation is run, regardless of where you live.
Which is patently untrue, as proven by the two examples I have personal experience of.
**Some** countries don't get the right to vote for citizens by resident in country for the last X years, but some do, ergo, you will **not** always have the right to have a say.
I moved away from the UK 5 years ago but I’m still voting via proxy. It’s still my home country and I think I deserve to have a say in the direction it goes. I have family still there and I am voting for their best interests, particularly the younger members of my family.
It’s your citizenship that entitles your right to vote, living, working and paying tax does not give you that right.
Though I guess I’m net contributing to the UK by paying student loans at 7% interest without using any public services.
Yes, I vote Labour / Greens, and it didn't bother me when I lost my ability to vote in elections while living overseas, because I **chose not to live in the UK**.
There does need to be a time period where you *can* vote, but after X years, no, regardless of party, you shouldn't be able to vote - just like should have been the case with Brexit.
If I move to say Germany for work for 3 years, but will be returning to the UK after that, I *should* retain the right to vote from overseas, because I'm temporarily overseas, and the changes of that government will affect me when I return.
If I move to Germany with no real plans to return, then after X years living in Germany I should lose the right to vote, since the changes effected by the government will only affect me if I decide to return.
I.E. you shouldn't lose the right to vote immediately on moving overseas, but you **should** lose it after a certain period of time overseas - personally I'd make it so you can vote in the next general election after moving overseas, but you can only be an overseas voter for a single election.
I do agree that after decades you possibly should lose your right. But citizens who are residents elsewhere are still affected by who’s in power in their home country. And therefore their vote is still fair. I mean, look at Brexit. That had a huge affect on people. If that affects their rights, why shouldn’t they have a say? There’s also military and climate related effects.
It's fairly simple for me.
You can register as an overseas voter for a single election, but not for any follow on elections.
I.E. if I'd moved to Germany in 2020, I could vote in this upcoming election, but if I was still overseas at the next election in (I presume) 2029 I **wouldn't** be able to vote in that, or following elections.
Alternatively, set up overseas constituencies that represent the registered overseas voters - the number of registered voters controls the number of seats (the same as in the UK elections), something like 1 MP per 100,000 voters.
I agree with the second bit for sure. I live and work in the EU, but I'm British. I feel I have the right to vote on things that affect me still, but I do find it odd that my vote is for the location I *last* lived in the UK. There's a detachment there. So yeh it would make sense to have a overseas constituency.
Fortunately British Citizenship is based on a system of laws rather than asking you whether each person should or shouldn’t be allowed in.
She is non-resident and so doesn’t pay taxes in the UK. It’s the same system every country in the world uses other than the US and North Korea.
Whether she is also now non-dom as a result of living in Spain for 30 years is pretty much irrelevant for tax, she certainly wouldn’t be “claiming” it, even if she came back. That stopped in 2018. In fact, I doubt living in Spain saves any tax for most people. They have similar tax rates and social security (NI) rates to the UK.
"Through her work introducing Spaniards to British culture, Valerie says she has always felt like an “ambassador” for the UK."
I went to Ibiza when I was 18 and introduced a lot of Spaniards to British culture. I didn't know it classed as work...
Sorry, if you don't pay tax (council or regular), then you shouldn't get a say. She can vote in the Spanish Elections.
What constituency does she even count as? Why should she decide who gets to represent the people of Luton (for example) if she's never there...
> She can vote in the Spanish Elections.
She can't though.
I agree with your point that taxation should equal representation, but that isn't how things work right now.
>taxation should equal representation
I find this such an antiquated concept. Besides, British citizens abroad are really not the problem when we allow Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain to vote in GE and referendums.
>Spain doesn't allow dual citizenship
That's pretty irrelevant as the UK *does* allow duel citizenship. So in the same way that my former colleague from Russia has UK citizenship & Russian citizenship, even though Russia doesn't "allow" duel citizenship, so can she.
I mean, she'd have to lie on the form / interview where it inevitably says "are you a national of another country", but I can't imagine that that's too big a hurdle to someone that wanted to do it.
VAT is a sizable contribution, regardless of employment status.
Although, I would like to distance myself from any suggestion that voting power should be linked to tax contributions. That's some dystopian shit right there.
Well it is because the criteria should be the same for everyone. So if they are a citizen then they can vote.
Unless you are suggesting scrapping universal suffrage and bringing back wealth requirements.
Why should someone who neither contributes to taxation nor avails of government spending be allowed to influence government spending in a different country to where they live
Similarly, why should someone who has lived in Madrid for years be allowed to vote and influence policy in Manchester
Why should someone who lives outside the jurisdiction of UK laws be able to vote on how these laws are changed
It is barefaced gerrymandering
>“I deserve to have a say in what's going on,” 76-year-old Valerie Stacey says from her home in central Madrid.
No more than I do in the way that Spain is governed. The fucking entitlement, Jesus Christ. It's got to be narcissism right, like to think you should have say in the way a country is governed that you haven't lived in for OVER A DECADE.
The Tories changed the rules recently to allow more expats to vote, this person otherwise wouldn't have been eligible because, right, *she doesn't fucking live here*.
>Are you a Spanish national?
Actually you only have to be a resident of Spain, and be an EU citizen to vote in Spanish elections, [https://administracion.gob.es/pag\_Home/en/Tu-espacio-europeo/derechos-obligaciones/ciudadanos/residencia/elecciones/municipales.html#-b890dcc8ed94](https://administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/en/Tu-espacio-europeo/derechos-obligaciones/ciudadanos/residencia/elecciones/municipales.html#-b890dcc8ed94)
Moreover, you could be a duel Spanish and British/Irish/Qualifying Commonwealth Nation citizen, and entitled to vote in the UK elections.
For fucks sake mate, do you not understand what a hypothetical situation is? Do you take everything literally?
Also, if I were a dual citizen of somewhere, or did live somewhere else, why the cock would I tell you?
>What hypothetical? You said you were a Spanish national who doesn't feel deserves to have a say what's going on in Spain.
Where did I say those exact words?
I said that she has not more right to have a say here, given she does not live here, than I do where she lives, **SPAIN**, given I don't live there.
The fact you thought I was a Spanish national is your own mistake, at no point have I said that I was.
Everyone else who read my comment understood the point I was making, you should ruminate on that.
again, the fact you didn't get the comparison and everyone else did is very much a you problem.
don't push the blame on to others for your lack of understanding, own it, learn fron it.
CAVEAT: I am a British citizens currently living abroad so if that negates my point for you, no need to read on.
France has a pretty good system, they have an "MP" for citizens living abroad, so rather than voting for a specific constituency (which I can still do despite not living there), I would vote for a representative for emigrants.
FYI, the UK law also recently changed, it used be 15 years abroad meant you could no longer vote, now it is indefinite.
Furthermore you can't choose to renounce British citizenship, there is no legal way of doing that, so unless you change that law, you'd have to have classes of citizenship to address this.
Are these the same ex-pats that voted for Brexit and then moaned that the rules changed?
If you don't live here, don't pay taxes here and don't contribute in any other way, you shouldn't get the right to vote.
Why does the vote or someone who has spent 20 years in Spain get to be considered equal to mine, who lives here and is directly affected by them?
I liked the guy on at the end of that piece. He was a doctor or something and felt uncomfortable having the right to vote.
Well, I couldn't vote for the Brexit referendum because I'd been away from the UK for over 15 years, despite it directly affecting me, so I don't see how she'll be able to vote if she's been away for decades.
uh "**Around two million British citizens who have been living abroad for more than 15 years can now vote in UK general elections, following a rule change by the Conservative government**" literally the first sentence in the article?
Most the comments in this post are just incredibly dumb and completely ignorant.
Even when you don't live in the UK, decisions made by government massively affect the life of British citizens living abroad.
Also for the amount of people talking about you should need to pay tax to vote, a huge number (probably most, though I'm not sure if this statistic is tracked anywhere) of British citizens living abroad pay voluntary tax.
> Even after almost five decades abroad, Ian takes a keen interest in UK government policy because of concerns about his pension.
> He has spent 20 years campaigning for the UK government to improve state pensions for British citizens who moved abroad. Some countries, like Canada, do not have a financial agreement with the UK that allows for annual increases to the UK state pension.
Lucky guy. Works till he’s in his 20s, leaves, then gets a state pension he’s not contributed towards for 50 years, while campaigning to *increase it*. Nice work if you can get it, eh?
You're just completely incorrect. If you want a state pension while you've lived abroad for most of your adult life, you need to continue contributing to it while abroad (for many at a much higher rate than you would while not abroad).
Why the 3 biggest parties have policies that expand the franchise to give them more votes?
It's so blatant that it's not for good reasons and it's only because they think the selected group will vote for them.
This story also shows the obscene way that people can live abroad their entire adult life while retaining all of the benefits of a system they never pay into.
Complete parasites.
It is outrageous that these people are allowed a vote.
If the UK isn't their primary residence then they shouldn't have a say in things. Some of these people have lived abroad for 40 or 50 years.
Because you don't live here.
Sure you pay tax but you have chosen to live somewhere else. My suspicion about many people in your position (and no I'm not accusing you of it because I don't know anything about you) is that their primary motivation in choosing who to vote for would be how much tax they have to pay rather than anything to do with the general wellbeing and future of the country.
Plenty of other people have investments in the UK and aren't allowed to vote so why should someone who has gone off to live somewhere else?
Taxes are a factor, but also knowing that my tenants and potential tenants have good secure employment in an area with good economic prospects is also a motivating factor when I post my vote. Also, those uk citizens may want to return one day and return to a country that is stable and well managed.
Because you don't live here and don't have to deal with 99% of the consequences.
Hundreds of property owners without British nationality own and pay for properties in the UK but they don't get a vote and they shouldn't.
I do have to deal with the consequences if the economy is not well managed as it has an effect on currency prices, how much rent I get, and the equity in the property. If I am paying tax into a system, then why shouldn't I get representation, and maybe I want to return one day?
I don’t get how this is allowed. Can you just choose a constituency? Seems open for corruption.
Referendum voting abroad makes sense. Parliament doesn’t
Your vote is counted in the last district/location that you resided in the UK. You have to register with the local council that you last voted with, whilst you were in the UK
'Although she has lived in Spain since the early 1980s, Valerie has strong views on the NHS and social care in the UK. ' hahahahahahaha what the fuck.
Do you really think she's any less informed than the average voter?
Unless she's paying taxes to the UK government she shouldn't be allowed to influence how that tax is spent
Should we ban anyone who’s not a net contributor then?
That would mean a voting populace of about 100,000
Don't recall saying that Lots of disingenuous interpretations being made here
So if she paid 1p in tax you’d be happy with her voting?
If she was paying income tax, NI, capital gains tax or something similar, then that would be fair
Sounds good to me, what about VAT? If she comes over to visit then she’ll have paid that.
This is a completely disingenuous question, as you well know, but no, obviously not. Because : A) Anyone who buys anything in the UK pays VAT B) VAT can be reclaimed by foreign residents C) VAT is not tracked at a consumer level by HMRC
Does she have to pay tax every year or do her existing national insurance contributions count?
How much tax does she need to pay? What's the cut-off in your mind that entitles someone to have a say in how the tax is spent?
If you A) Choose to live abroad for an extended period And B) Do not pay taxes to the UK Then you should not be allowed a say in how the country is run. Its like if the person who used to own your house started telling you what colour you had to paint your kitchen walls Edit: someone was itching for an argument and then blocked me, great banter
How much tax to get a vote? Easy question, you just have to name a number.
Such an insincere question, name a figure so that you can attack the figure and not the principle If she pays income tax, NI, capital gains tax, or similar than fair enough, but if they are living abroad long term, working abroad, paying tax abroad then you shouldn't have a say about how its taxes are spent Edit : blocked because they disagree with me instead of actually answering the question, hilarious
No, it's an absolutely sincere question, I'm asking for an actual number. Your position is indefensible in practice, which is why I am trying to lead you to realise that step by step.
Why is it indefensible
Because whatever number you come up with will be ridiculous. It would either allow people to meet it easily on paper, or be a number that many people wouldn't achieve even whilst living and working here.
Let's start with £1. If you pay less tax than that, and don't live in the country, you don't get a vote. Doesn't seem too complicated.
So, buy a £5 sandwich once a year, and you qualify.
Sure. It's a good starting point. The point being made is that people paying **£0** tax, *and* not living in the UK, should not have a right to vote.
But how do you know they don't pay any tax at all? There are lots of ways that money gets contributed to the exchequer. A holiday here once a year produces tax revenue.
As i said in another comment, trying to drill down into absolute minutae to turn it into a bun fight instead of actually discussing the principle of the issue It's like asking about how many pounds green energy subsidy should be in response to someone saying that they think green energy should be subsidised
You don't have to pay to be a citizen. Unless you're also ok with all the immigrants to the UK paying their tax obligations to their home countries rather than the UK too?
Oh fuck off, she's a citizen of our country even if she doesn't live here. Talking about taking voting rights away from our citizens is a slippery slope. Thank fuck you are not calling the shots.
Do you also think I should be allowed to vote in the general election because I pay taxes here even though I'm an immigrant and therefore can only vote in local elections?
Does the reverse also apply?
Yes, with a caveat that you have to live here for 2 or 3 years first
What’s the reverse?
Being able to vote if you’re paying regular taxes to the uk government
That’s what they said though isn’t it, not the reverse?
They were saying expats shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless they pay taxes because they shouldn’t be allowed to influence how others’ tax is spent; I’m wondering if they also think that people who do pay tax should be allowed to vote because they *should* be allowed to influence how their tax is spent
Ah ok, I thought you were asking them if they thought people on benefits *shouldnt* be allowed to vote
it's a fair conclusion that they would think that based on the logic of their argument. coherent logic may not be their strong point though.
If you are trying to trap me into generally saying that if you dont pay tax then you shouldn't vote, then no it doesn't apply But in this specific case where a citizen has chosen to live abroad for an extended period of time then i don't see why they should be able to vote to shape the future of a country that they neither contribute to nor live in
I'm not, I was just wondering if you think people who pay tax should be allowed to vote on what is done with it i.e. extending the vote beyond what it currently is
Generally yes, i think you should be allowed to vote if you are either : Living in the UK long term Or UK citizen who pays tax to the UK
Yes mate because she lives 1200 miles away. She has no say on the NHS.
Okay, I work for the NHS and am more informed about it than most voters. How many extra votes should I get?
Not sure that's how a democracy works pal.
And yet you are the one advocating to remove votes. Are you sure you actually know how a democracy works?
Remove votes because she doesn't live in the country she is voting in, should I be allowed to vote in the Spanish elections?
If you meet Spain's voter registration laws, yes.
So it’s completely reasonable to not be able to vote if you don’t meet that criteria? Therefore the UK could change its criteria to require residence if that’s what people actually want.
The idea that laws passed have a relationship to what people want is upliftingly naive.
They are advocating to remove votes of those who are not impacted by their vote. These are people who could all vote for everyone over the age of 10 to be whipped 6 times every day. Except they don't live here so they don't face the result of this vote. Is that fair? Is that democracy? Do you think that people should be able to vote for changes to a country that is not theirs? Changes that will not have any impact on them or their lives? I mean, this is a topic that has nuance, sure, but it is disingenuous for you to suggest they are just removing votes to prevent democracy.
If i understand the article correctly before the recent rule change she would not have been able to vote. I believe people who are both citizens and residents should be the ones allowed to vote. Personally I would go stricter, but I do think this is a reasonable and non-contreversial threshold, as was the case until recently enough. what if these 100,000 they mentioned were voting on introducing conscription? or whatever other topic people may be less agreeable with? they're not going to be paying the price. same is true with any topic.
Empathy?
[удалено]
No, she wants it to be good enough so that when she wants to she can pop home for that sweet free healthcare
Because if she gets sick, she’ll want to come back and use them?!
She'll probably visit the UK and moan about immigrants even know she's one herself.
And probably also thinks Spain is “too Spanish”.
Hard disagree on this particular piece of gerrymandering. If you've fucked out elsewhere for 15+ years (and especially for more than half your life) you **don't** get a say in how the UK is run - you've already chosen to live somewhere that's not the UK. What are the odds most of the grey haired Costa del Sol bunch are the targets for this, and most will vote conservative?
Because they still want access to NHS and pensions!
Firstly, access to the NHS is based on residency. I moved to Australia last year, I have to get travel insurance when I travel home. Which is fine, because I'd rather get treated in Australia any day. Secondly, the UK pension system is a hybrid one incorporating public and employer/private-based elements. It's got nothing to do with citizenship. Retirees abroad get access to pensions because they've built up an entitlement; that's it. There are non-citizens living abroad pulling down a state pension from HMRC because they lived in the UK for ten years or more. As I explained in the ukpol thread on this, retirees entitled to a British state pension in many countries (not Spain) get a pretty raw deal anyway. Anyone in Canada or Australia gets no uprating whatsoever, so their state pension actually decreases in value with time and is eroded by inflation - like a reverse triple lock. There's also no counting of UK state pension contributions towards local pension entitlements like the Canadian Pension Plan. Unless you give people the choice to opt out of NICs and building up an entitlement to the state pension altogether, it would be profoundly unjust to just . . . not pay a state pension to anyone who retires abroad. tl;dr - it has nothing to do with benefits
> Firstly, access to the NHS is based on residency. I moved to Australia last year, I have to get travel insurance when I travel home. Which is fine, because I'd rather get treated in Australia any day. You're right, but if you move back to the UK you're immediately eligible for NHS treatment as long as you're a citizen and you "intend to remain in the UK". Non-citizens need to have lived in the UK for at least 3 continuous months, but that doesn't apply to us, "intention" is enough. You may need to provide evidence like a UK address and bank account, although I just recently moved back to the UK from Germany and have never been asked for evidence. (How would the NHS even know I lived abroad previously? That's not something they ask anybody...)
>There are non-citizens living abroad pulling down a state pension from HMRC because they lived in the UK for ten years or more. Incorrect. It's a minimum of 10 years qualifying National Insurance contributions, not residency based.
🙄 I'm making the quite obvious assumption that said example paid NICs in their time here.
1. That's a poor assumption to make. 2. Downvoting someone who pointed out that you were wrong is childish, but you do you.
I didn't actually, but now I will. Have a good one.
Australia and New Zealand both count years contributing to the UK state pension towards qualifying for super. You **also** have to have been paying local contributions to super for a period, but that's massively reduced for UK citizens.
Sorry mate but that's really not how super works, at least in Australia (I know very little about the NZ system). Super is like a cross between a LISA and a SIPP. My balance on arriving in Australia was $0. There's no entitlement to anything and I don't have to qualify for it; I just have to work to add more money to my pot. It's not at all like the state pension. For one, it's solvent and won't bankrupt the country in two decades. The Commonwealth has a means-tested age pension, which is not based on entitlements, although there is a minimum residency requirement. Super was introduced to slowly reduce reliance on the age pension for Aussie retirees.
Yeah, NZ citizen, not Aussie. In NZ the "state pension" is called Super(annuation). You guys have a state pension and the mandatory private pension - the mandatory private pension part is called Super. Because you cunts are weird. Doesn't change the point though - there's an awful lot of commonwealth countries with similar social security arrangements.
If you are a citizen of this country you should have the right to vote. The moment we begin to rescind voting rights from one group the easier it becomes to do so for other groups. This type of thing always starts with something where most people can ‘see the point’, but once the precedence is set it becomes a slippery slope. Best to ensure every citizen has the right to vote than begin the process of picking and choosing who is allowed to have a say in our democracy.
And yet in a couple of years I won't be able to vote in New Zealand elections any more. I've never been able to vote in German elections. This is despite being a citizen of both of these countries (and the UK).
And I think you should have the right to vote in the elections of both those countries.
Well said.
This isn't gerrymandering.
Thank you. I think in the uk all sorts of changes in voting (voting age and voter id for example) get lumped in with gerrymandering. I think the issue is the sort of gerrymandering that happens all the time in the us doesn’t really happen hear (odd shaped constituencies that exclude voters)
I think there are better arguments to be made for certain groups of voters to not vote. Not saying I feel strongly these people should be enfranchised, but I think it's always better to err on the side of more people having the vote than fewer. Cause making arguments for certain groups to not vote always causes more problems than it's worth.
Maybe, but there's a very strong argument in this specific case that people who have chosen to **not engage with a democracy** (by living in another country for an *extended* period of time) shouldn't have a say in how that democracy is run.
>not engage with a democracy As Brexit showed, sometimes British democracy has a way of reaching out and fucking up the lives of people who left anyway. British affairs do not stop at the border. Looking forward to voting from abroad for the first time.
I don’t think you can say that moving abroad is a choice to “not engage with democracy”. In fact they’re doing the opposite: they are bothering to engage despite the extra steps involved and may well have voted during their first 15 years abroad. People who stay in the UK don’t do it to make sure they don’t miss the next general election…
Should I have no say in how the care system would work for my parents, how visas would affect me and my family moving back to the UK, pension contributions and inheritance?
Hard disagree on this ignorant perspective. If you’re a citizen of a country you will always have a right to have a say in how your nation is run, regardless of where you live. Many of us with multiple citizenships have family and friends who still live there and we want to use our right to vote to ensure that the best people are doing the job and looking after all those people.
>you will always have a right to have a say in how your nation is run I mean that's patently untrue. I don't have that right in New Zealand after 3 years overseas. I also don't have that right in Germany. I'm a tri-national with citizenship in all 3 countries.
Speak the truth. It’s patently untrue where you come from. That’s your experience not everyone else’s.
Your literal comment was: >If you’re a citizen of a country you will always have a right to have a say in how your nation is run, regardless of where you live. Which is patently untrue, as proven by the two examples I have personal experience of. **Some** countries don't get the right to vote for citizens by resident in country for the last X years, but some do, ergo, you will **not** always have the right to have a say.
I moved away from the UK 5 years ago but I’m still voting via proxy. It’s still my home country and I think I deserve to have a say in the direction it goes. I have family still there and I am voting for their best interests, particularly the younger members of my family. It’s your citizenship that entitles your right to vote, living, working and paying tax does not give you that right. Though I guess I’m net contributing to the UK by paying student loans at 7% interest without using any public services.
Would you care as much if they voted Labour?
Yes, I vote Labour / Greens, and it didn't bother me when I lost my ability to vote in elections while living overseas, because I **chose not to live in the UK**. There does need to be a time period where you *can* vote, but after X years, no, regardless of party, you shouldn't be able to vote - just like should have been the case with Brexit.
I don’t disagree, I just found your last sentence quite odd, not sure how it was relevant
If I move to say Germany for work for 3 years, but will be returning to the UK after that, I *should* retain the right to vote from overseas, because I'm temporarily overseas, and the changes of that government will affect me when I return. If I move to Germany with no real plans to return, then after X years living in Germany I should lose the right to vote, since the changes effected by the government will only affect me if I decide to return. I.E. you shouldn't lose the right to vote immediately on moving overseas, but you **should** lose it after a certain period of time overseas - personally I'd make it so you can vote in the next general election after moving overseas, but you can only be an overseas voter for a single election.
Again, I agree with you. All I was doing was questioning your motives.
I do agree that after decades you possibly should lose your right. But citizens who are residents elsewhere are still affected by who’s in power in their home country. And therefore their vote is still fair. I mean, look at Brexit. That had a huge affect on people. If that affects their rights, why shouldn’t they have a say? There’s also military and climate related effects.
It's fairly simple for me. You can register as an overseas voter for a single election, but not for any follow on elections. I.E. if I'd moved to Germany in 2020, I could vote in this upcoming election, but if I was still overseas at the next election in (I presume) 2029 I **wouldn't** be able to vote in that, or following elections. Alternatively, set up overseas constituencies that represent the registered overseas voters - the number of registered voters controls the number of seats (the same as in the UK elections), something like 1 MP per 100,000 voters.
I agree with the second bit for sure. I live and work in the EU, but I'm British. I feel I have the right to vote on things that affect me still, but I do find it odd that my vote is for the location I *last* lived in the UK. There's a detachment there. So yeh it would make sense to have a overseas constituency.
No longer British citizens if ask me. But this is so you can claim non dom and still vote.
Fortunately British Citizenship is based on a system of laws rather than asking you whether each person should or shouldn’t be allowed in. She is non-resident and so doesn’t pay taxes in the UK. It’s the same system every country in the world uses other than the US and North Korea. Whether she is also now non-dom as a result of living in Spain for 30 years is pretty much irrelevant for tax, she certainly wouldn’t be “claiming” it, even if she came back. That stopped in 2018. In fact, I doubt living in Spain saves any tax for most people. They have similar tax rates and social security (NI) rates to the UK.
*No longer British citizens if ask me* No one is asking you.
[удалено]
Nowhere, according to Theresa May.
if u turn ur back on are country u should have citizenship revoked 😤 simple as
"Through her work introducing Spaniards to British culture, Valerie says she has always felt like an “ambassador” for the UK." I went to Ibiza when I was 18 and introduced a lot of Spaniards to British culture. I didn't know it classed as work...
Ambassadorial work as well, which surely means it should come with some kind of immunity.
Last year I went to Barcelona for a few days and spent time improving international relations with a very nice Catalonian woman. Where's my article?
Need to give the same title to football hooligans and get them diplomatic immunity. Wait actually no that *might* be a light act of war.
Sorry, if you don't pay tax (council or regular), then you shouldn't get a say. She can vote in the Spanish Elections. What constituency does she even count as? Why should she decide who gets to represent the people of Luton (for example) if she's never there...
> She can vote in the Spanish Elections. She can't though. I agree with your point that taxation should equal representation, but that isn't how things work right now.
>taxation should equal representation I find this such an antiquated concept. Besides, British citizens abroad are really not the problem when we allow Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain to vote in GE and referendums.
How do you know she can't vote in the Spanish elections?
You need citizenship to vote, and Spain doesn't allow dual citizenship if naturalised IIRC.
You can vote in local elections: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/expat-voting-rights-treaty-secured-with-spain
But who cares about local elections?
>Spain doesn't allow dual citizenship That's pretty irrelevant as the UK *does* allow duel citizenship. So in the same way that my former colleague from Russia has UK citizenship & Russian citizenship, even though Russia doesn't "allow" duel citizenship, so can she. I mean, she'd have to lie on the form / interview where it inevitably says "are you a national of another country", but I can't imagine that that's too big a hurdle to someone that wanted to do it.
Unemployed people can vote
VAT is a sizable contribution, regardless of employment status. Although, I would like to distance myself from any suggestion that voting power should be linked to tax contributions. That's some dystopian shit right there.
Careful mate, according to some commenters below asking foreign residents to pay tax in order to vote is "indefensible"!
Well it is because the criteria should be the same for everyone. So if they are a citizen then they can vote. Unless you are suggesting scrapping universal suffrage and bringing back wealth requirements.
Why should someone who neither contributes to taxation nor avails of government spending be allowed to influence government spending in a different country to where they live Similarly, why should someone who has lived in Madrid for years be allowed to vote and influence policy in Manchester Why should someone who lives outside the jurisdiction of UK laws be able to vote on how these laws are changed It is barefaced gerrymandering
Remember this when people moan about 16 year olds being given the right to vote. Also remember the voter ID reforms the tories did.
>“I deserve to have a say in what's going on,” 76-year-old Valerie Stacey says from her home in central Madrid. No more than I do in the way that Spain is governed. The fucking entitlement, Jesus Christ. It's got to be narcissism right, like to think you should have say in the way a country is governed that you haven't lived in for OVER A DECADE.
[удалено]
The Tories changed the rules recently to allow more expats to vote, this person otherwise wouldn't have been eligible because, right, *she doesn't fucking live here*. >Are you a Spanish national? Actually you only have to be a resident of Spain, and be an EU citizen to vote in Spanish elections, [https://administracion.gob.es/pag\_Home/en/Tu-espacio-europeo/derechos-obligaciones/ciudadanos/residencia/elecciones/municipales.html#-b890dcc8ed94](https://administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/en/Tu-espacio-europeo/derechos-obligaciones/ciudadanos/residencia/elecciones/municipales.html#-b890dcc8ed94) Moreover, you could be a duel Spanish and British/Irish/Qualifying Commonwealth Nation citizen, and entitled to vote in the UK elections.
[удалено]
For fucks sake mate, do you not understand what a hypothetical situation is? Do you take everything literally? Also, if I were a dual citizen of somewhere, or did live somewhere else, why the cock would I tell you?
[удалено]
>What hypothetical? You said you were a Spanish national who doesn't feel deserves to have a say what's going on in Spain. Where did I say those exact words? I said that she has not more right to have a say here, given she does not live here, than I do where she lives, **SPAIN**, given I don't live there. The fact you thought I was a Spanish national is your own mistake, at no point have I said that I was. Everyone else who read my comment understood the point I was making, you should ruminate on that.
[удалено]
again, the fact you didn't get the comparison and everyone else did is very much a you problem. don't push the blame on to others for your lack of understanding, own it, learn fron it.
Those are local elections, not national ones.
CAVEAT: I am a British citizens currently living abroad so if that negates my point for you, no need to read on. France has a pretty good system, they have an "MP" for citizens living abroad, so rather than voting for a specific constituency (which I can still do despite not living there), I would vote for a representative for emigrants. FYI, the UK law also recently changed, it used be 15 years abroad meant you could no longer vote, now it is indefinite. Furthermore you can't choose to renounce British citizenship, there is no legal way of doing that, so unless you change that law, you'd have to have classes of citizenship to address this.
Are these the same ex-pats that voted for Brexit and then moaned that the rules changed? If you don't live here, don't pay taxes here and don't contribute in any other way, you shouldn't get the right to vote. Why does the vote or someone who has spent 20 years in Spain get to be considered equal to mine, who lives here and is directly affected by them? I liked the guy on at the end of that piece. He was a doctor or something and felt uncomfortable having the right to vote.
> Are these the same ex-pats that voted for Brexit and then moaned that the rules changed? No idea, are they?
Well, I couldn't vote for the Brexit referendum because I'd been away from the UK for over 15 years, despite it directly affecting me, so I don't see how she'll be able to vote if she's been away for decades.
uh "**Around two million British citizens who have been living abroad for more than 15 years can now vote in UK general elections, following a rule change by the Conservative government**" literally the first sentence in the article?
Oops, good call. I hadn't read the article, so thanks for letting me know. I've just registered ;D
Most the comments in this post are just incredibly dumb and completely ignorant. Even when you don't live in the UK, decisions made by government massively affect the life of British citizens living abroad. Also for the amount of people talking about you should need to pay tax to vote, a huge number (probably most, though I'm not sure if this statistic is tracked anywhere) of British citizens living abroad pay voluntary tax.
But they’ve voting for MPs somewhere they don’t live. Surely that opens this up to gerrymandering
> Even after almost five decades abroad, Ian takes a keen interest in UK government policy because of concerns about his pension. > He has spent 20 years campaigning for the UK government to improve state pensions for British citizens who moved abroad. Some countries, like Canada, do not have a financial agreement with the UK that allows for annual increases to the UK state pension. Lucky guy. Works till he’s in his 20s, leaves, then gets a state pension he’s not contributed towards for 50 years, while campaigning to *increase it*. Nice work if you can get it, eh?
You're just completely incorrect. If you want a state pension while you've lived abroad for most of your adult life, you need to continue contributing to it while abroad (for many at a much higher rate than you would while not abroad).
Why the 3 biggest parties have policies that expand the franchise to give them more votes? It's so blatant that it's not for good reasons and it's only because they think the selected group will vote for them. This story also shows the obscene way that people can live abroad their entire adult life while retaining all of the benefits of a system they never pay into. Complete parasites.
It is outrageous that these people are allowed a vote. If the UK isn't their primary residence then they shouldn't have a say in things. Some of these people have lived abroad for 40 or 50 years.
I don't live in the UK but I still pay UK tax on my properties and rental income. So why shouldn't I get a vote?
Because you don't live here. Sure you pay tax but you have chosen to live somewhere else. My suspicion about many people in your position (and no I'm not accusing you of it because I don't know anything about you) is that their primary motivation in choosing who to vote for would be how much tax they have to pay rather than anything to do with the general wellbeing and future of the country. Plenty of other people have investments in the UK and aren't allowed to vote so why should someone who has gone off to live somewhere else?
Why would you vote for increased taxes and public spending if the only effect on you is the increased taxes?
Taxes are a factor, but also knowing that my tenants and potential tenants have good secure employment in an area with good economic prospects is also a motivating factor when I post my vote. Also, those uk citizens may want to return one day and return to a country that is stable and well managed.
If you haven't been resident in the UK for at least 6 out of 12 months on average over the last 10 years you should be unable to vote.
I don't live in the UK but I still pay UK tax on my properties and rental income. So why shouldn't I get a vote?
Because you don't live here and don't have to deal with 99% of the consequences. Hundreds of property owners without British nationality own and pay for properties in the UK but they don't get a vote and they shouldn't.
I do have to deal with the consequences if the economy is not well managed as it has an effect on currency prices, how much rent I get, and the equity in the property. If I am paying tax into a system, then why shouldn't I get representation, and maybe I want to return one day?
Every day it gets harder to not just outright hate boomers
I don’t get how this is allowed. Can you just choose a constituency? Seems open for corruption. Referendum voting abroad makes sense. Parliament doesn’t
Your vote is counted in the last district/location that you resided in the UK. You have to register with the local council that you last voted with, whilst you were in the UK