Monday, 10 May 2010

Elections and the Commonwealth

Is it not very strange that Commonwealth citizens can vote in the UK? In General Elections European Union citizens cannot vote - but Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens can still do so, and so can citizens of Cyprus and Malta, which are EU countries, but also Commonwealth countries.

In this regard, MigrationWatch released a briefing paper on the 21st February 2008 on the right of non-citizens to vote, with particular regard to the puzzling permission allowed "Commonwealth citizens". (See MigrationWatch, "The Right of Non Citizens to Vote in Britain", Briefing paper 8.22)

It had these important points to make (my emphases):
British electoral law provides for the citizens of nearly fifty Commonwealth countries, British Dependent Territories, and the Republic of Ireland to vote in both local and general elections in the UK. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term "British subject" included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the crown territory in which they were born. This included Commonwealth citizens and has never been revised.

Entitlement to vote in general elections is reciprocated for UK citizens only in the Republic of Ireland and a small number of (mainly West Indian) countries: Antigua & Barbuda; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; Mauritius; St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines.
It points out that the scale of this extension of the franchise is considerable:
Data on International Migration and the UK provided to the OECD indicates that there were 3,353,000 foreign citizens living in the UK in 2006. Of these 1,057,000 are from named Commonwealth countries and we estimate that a further 105,000 are from other Commonwealth countries making a total of 1,162,000 Commonwealth citizens in the UK.

Some of this total will be children. Children under 18 make up 22% of the UK population but it is likely that they will make up a smaller proportion of the population of foreign citizens. The international migration statistics indicate that under 5% of net migration is of children under 15. Migrants cannot acquire citizenship until 5 years after their arrival in the UK so foreign citizenship will be weighted heavily towards recent arrivals. It is likely therefore that children who are foreign citizens will comprise less than 15% of the total population of foreign citizens leaving a population of nearly a million (988,000) adult Commonwealth citizens in the UK. They will have the right to vote in British elections simply by virtue of their Commonwealth origins.
The fact that these people can vote in Britain, but we cannot vote in their countries, and the fact that in a close election their votes will be critical is:
Not only inequitable, but also illogical. It extends the franchise to a large number of individuals whose allegiance lies in states other than the United Kingdom. It is quite clearly an anachronism which, given the recent sustained increase in immigration, is now potentially significant. It should be removed.
MigrationWatch recommends that in future:
the right to vote in British general elections should be confined to citizens of the UK and those countries that offer reciprocal voting rights, namely the Republic of Ireland and certain West Indian countries. Proof of citizenship should be required on first registration on the Electoral Roll. The right to vote in local elections should be confined to citizens of the same countries plus those of the EU where there are reciprocal voting rights in local elections.
National citizenship - as opposed to universalist concepts of "global citizenship" - is undermined if we throw away its key privileges to people who are not entitled to enjoy them. If national citizenship is to be at all special - if it is to mean anything - then it must confer advantages upon national citizens, which are not enjoyed by non-citizens.

Voting rights is one of those key privileges. Meanwhile in Brussels "no taxation without representation" is proving to be a remarkably hollow statement. Jonathan Mayhew would have been shocked if he had been alive today. Boston politician James Otis had a different rendering which is much closer to the truth "taxation without representation is tyranny".

No comments: