We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Expats frozen out of EU Referendum in Spain British citizens living abroad in Spain, as many now do, may be barred from voting in the forthcoming European Referendum, according to this article in the Daily Telegraph filed a few days ago. I hope the article turns out to be wrong, if only because the margins deciding this vital poll may be quite thin, as I fear during my gloomier moments. There are hundreds of thousands of Brits, many retirees, who have forsaken these shores for sunnier climes to the south. It would be unconscionable but entirely in keeping with how the EU operates, if they were to be denied the chance to have their say.
I have a sick feeling in my stomach that in the year we mark the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar, in which Admiral Nelson vanquished an early form of European transnationalism, the fate of British independence could be sealed due in part to a shoddily run referendum. I fervently hope I am dead wrong and there is high turnout for this poll when held.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
But Britain’s Thug-in-Chief is trying to wangle it so foreigners can vote in the British referendum. Thus, Europeans who can vote in our local, *but not national* elections, will be able to vote on the destiny of our entire country.
Johnathan – you disapprove of the Spanish decision to ban non-Spanish-citizen Spanish-resident EU nationals from voting in their EU referendum.
Does that mean that you would approve of a British decision to allow non-British-citizen British-resident EU nationals to vote in our referendum?
If not, why not?
This doesn’t seem weird to me, it’s a Spanish referendum on a national issue, EU citizens are allowed to vote in local and european elections in other EU countries, so this is quite understandable.
I Britain the same inability to vote in national elections holds for EU citizens, but Commonwealth citizens who are resident here have full voting rights. There are 1.7 billion people in the commonwealth who could vote here if they lived here.
I think the bar on national elections is to stop large roving voting blocks effectivly rigging national elections by moving to a country just in time to vote and changing the result, this is theoretically a big problem for smaller countries.
Hundreds of thousands of Brits…
Let’s hope we never leave the EU, otherwise we’ll have to house them (and their cousins from the Dordogne and Tuscany) all in the UK as they stream home, once the right to live abroad is taken away from them.
Concreting over the greenbelt, anyone?
In the U.S. we don’t allow resident aliens to vote in national elections even if those national elections will significantly effect their interests.
I really don’t understand the hub-bub.
Indeed, isn’t the author of the write-up essentially arguing for the transnationalism he supposedly despises by stating that foreign nationals ought to be able to vote in the Spanish national elections? Seems to me that the author’s line of argument has far more to do with the autho’rs perferred outcome rather principle.
Ironic that expatriate Iraqis were allowed to vote in numerous foreign countries, but that Brits living in, say, Italy, won’t be able to vote in the EU referendum (assuming I understand the circumstances correctly).
If Jonathan Pearce objects to:
And prefers:
<"Tony Blair could do the very opposite of the Spanish when he calls the referendum in Britain," he said. "We could then see pro-constitution, non-British European citizens flood across the Channel just to cast their `Yes' vote.">
Then he will vote for the EU Constitution when he gets a chance, so that Her Britannic Majesty’s subjects living in Spain may vote with His Catholic Majesty’s subjects in that realm, and turnabout-fair-play in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Doesn’t sound like the Jonathan Pearce I remember, but I may have him confused with Brian Micklethwait.
Okay, to the folk on this thread, the point surely is that the Brits concerned cannot vote, as far as I could see, on the referendum at all. Given that the EU Constitution will affect everyone in the EU area, this seems odd.
Johnathan – they won’t be able to vote in the *Spanish* referendum, but will be able to vote in the *British* one. This seems fair, no?
Absolutely, john b!
Until the EU swallows nationalism the voting will be by nation on EU issues (currently there is some resident-foreigner voting on local issues).
The point is to let each nation (remember the Danes?) make up their own mind on EU matters.
Anonymous Coward and others, to repeat, my problem with this state of affairs is that from what I read in the story, expat voters face a serious risk of not being able to vote in the UK referendum, assuming Phoney decides to hold one at all. Which means if they cannot vote in the Spanish one, they are left in no-man’s land. That is unacceptable.
And for what it is worth, I remain convinced that Britain needs to quit the EU trainwreck as soon as possible, for those that wonder whether I have left the path of ideological rectitude.
rgds
Ah, I see your confusion. The Telegraph is being quite a naughty newspaper at the moment (the lying about home defence thing; the made-up German prostitution thing…).
EU electoral laws enfranchise everyone who’s entitled to vote in a country’s domestic elections (so Commonwealth nationals can vote for MEP as well as MP), and add certain other categories of EU citizen if they are resident in the country and pledge not to vote anywhere else in Europe.
The question is whether the referendum will be held under UK electoral law, forcing Germans in the UK to go home to vote, or whether it will be analagous to European elections, allowing Germans to choose to vote in Germany or the UK. Given that it would be a major constitutional change, the former (as in Spain) would be my preferred option.
But either way, there is no chance that the election will disenfranchise people who’re entitled to vote in UK parliamentary elections (which includes all expats who’ve been away for 15 years or less).
Did you misread the article? Its about the Spanish Euro-constitution referendum.
Della, out of your 1.7 billion, 1.2 are Indians (the dot kind). So if I understand this right, 1.2 billion dot Indians, by virtue of their commonwealth membership will be allowed to vote in the EU elections. Have I got that right? Has Brussels been informed? Can I watch when they are? France has a problem with a few Turks, what will they do when the deal includes 1.2 billion Indians? This gets better and better.
On a positive note, it will piss off the Muslims to all ends to finally take over the left side of Asia and descover the Hindus beat them to it.
An expat myself, I do take umbrage at not having a proper say whatsoever in any meaningful elections anywhere.
And yet, I cannot think of any proper justification for anyone living outside the UK tax system being allowed a say in UK politics. The country’s government you’re paying taxes to ought to be the one you’re allowed to have a chance at voting out of office.
Just take those expat Iraqis, most of them have no intention of ever moving back to their rubbish nation, yet, just like a lot of American Jews and fifth generation US Irish, they all seem to love blabbing their idiot lips off about “their” country.
Every time I see a politician theses days, I’m shaking my head in disgust. I suppose I would reach for my revolver, but of course, they’re banned, unless you’re a copper, in which case you’re allowed to prance about cradling a fully automatic machine gun.
Anyone remember when all they had were truncheons?
Whatever may be true in theory people from other countries do vote in British national elections.
What happens is as follows:
A letter arrives at each house asking who lives there and is over 18, the householder is told that to leave anyone off the list is to break the law.
So lots of people who are neither born in Britiain, or are British subjects in some other way, end up going on the electoral register – and some of these people choose to vote.
Whether this is in line with the law or not is beside the point – it is what happens.
A couple of other things in this thread.
British people living in Spain having to come home if we leave the E.U. – absurd. Many British people retire to non E.U. countries now.
German prostitution “thing” “made up” by the Daily Telegraph. It was not “made up”, prostitution is legal in Germany (and so it should be) and women seeking certain welfare benefits have been sent job offers, via the authorities, from places where prostitution takes place – although they have not been told directly by the government to prostitute themselves,
The central problem here is the German labour market. If both the laws giving unions a special status outside traditional contract law and the various welfare benefits and THE TAXES TO PAY FOR THEM did not exist, German women would not be put into this position. Involuntary unemployment can only exist where wage rates are prevented from adjusting so that the market clears.
There is no need to abolish the unions (as was done, de facto, in 1933 in order to reduce unemployment that was then close to a third of the labour market), all that needs to be done is to enforce traditional law – no compulsory “collective bargaining”, no compulsory union reps on company boards (or anywhere else), no obstruction of company property (by “pickets” or whatever other paramilitary term is used), and (on companies part) a serious treatment of the practice of not turning up for work – the so called “strike”.
If people do not wish to turn up to work (other than for genuine illness or other reasons laid down in their contracts of employment), they must be treated as having resigned.
In the long term this would lead to HIGHER wages and BETTER conditions of work. By trying to improve wages and conditions faster than a free market would government backed unions undermine the long term future of the companies their members work for – thus leading to both unemployment and lower wages and worse conditions in the long term than would otherwise have been the case. Wages in some trades and at some times (say when prices are falling) may have to fall – but if they are allowed to fall, this will mean far higher wages for the general workforce in the long term (the same is true concerning conditions of work).
Printing more money (or issuing it via computer credit) is not a long term solution to anything. Indeed even Lord Keynes admitted that such a policy would need government action to prevent money wages being increased by the unions in order to keep up the real value of wages in a time of inflation – at least this is the implication of Lord Keynes’ support for the policy of direct control of the labour market as practiced by the German government in the 1930’s (see the preface to the German edition of Lord Keynes “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” 1936).
“Old fashioned” “reactionary” types (such as myself) hold that the policy of the National Socialists was not needed. A return to a free labour market would cure unemployment.
To return to the “prostitution thing”.
Of course, eventually, the situtation will also apply to men – as the German authorities have stated that offers of work from all legal establishments will be sent on to both women and men.
Thus union laws and welfare taxes designed to make a nation more humane will end up with people being forced to prostitute themselves.
That’s not true.
The form (Electoral Registration Form A) requires the registration of any person living at the property *who is eligible to vote* under the law. British citizens, Commonwealth citizens, Irish citizens and citizens of any EU country should be registered, nobody else should. Citizenship is also registered, since EU citizens cannot vote in all British elections but the other three categories can. The guidance notes you get with the form clearly and simply explain who should and should not be registered.
As they are entitled to do.
In theory. In practice this will not necessarily happen.
It is obvious that over-mighty unions are a problem, but it should be equally clear that having a preponderance of the power on one side is the problem. If companies have an absolute and exclusive right to determine the conditions of employment, how is this necessarily better than allowing unions the same absolute right? Why should one side be compelled to accept the dictates of the other?
Both sides have rights, but neither side has the right to dictate to the other. Employment should be a contract between free and willing parties, which implies a right for both parties to negotiate terms, including where circumstances change. Of course unions can be greedy and short-sighted, but so can employers.
EG