I’ve mentioned in my previous posts (Free Movement vs Migration; Free Movement vs Work Permit Schemes and the Mobile Classes vs the Rooted Classes) in this so far fortnightly series that EU citizens living in the UK should be fully enfranchised, that is, able to vote in General Elections as well as local and regional ones, not to mention in any referenda that may be held. In this post I want to approach the issue from a different angle.
To be crystal clear, my proposal is that anyone – EU citizen or not – who has legally lived and worked in the UK for a qualifying period of let’s say 3 years should be entitled to vote in all elections and any referenda, the same as UK and Commonwealth citizens. Essentially I agree with the “If you live here, you can vote here” position advocated by Jon Danzig, a man who clearly has more than the one blog.
Simple arithmetic suggests it may well be the case that the Brexit Referendum would not have been lost had EU citizens had the vote. But I believe the disenfranchisement has had much more insidious effects on our political discourse. As Danzig notes, we’ve been “talking about them as if they’re not in the room”, during the referendum campaign, even more so afterwards, but also for years before. Had politicians had to take UK resident EU citizens’ votes into account the tone of election campaigning over the years might well have been very different and we might never have had the Brexit referendum at all.
We’ve become accustomed to talking about EU citizens as separate from our “communities” – thereby undoing half a century of community relations effort, as I’ll explain another time – but exactly how can we justify denying them the vote?
Do EU citizens living in the UK have less of a stake in the country’s future than do UK citizens? Well, they are living here, paying their taxes and reliant on the rule of British law and the provision of state services exactly the same as UK citizens, though of course the details depend on everyone’s individual situation.
Are they here only temporarily? Well, they might be, but the 3 year qualifying period for a vote suggests at least some commitment to the UK. The majority will most likely stay considerably longer, not least because most of them are in work. On the other hand, some UK citizens may emigrate, maybe to retire abroad. We don’t deny categories of UK citizens the vote on the basis that they’re statistically more likely to move overseas. Even if EU citizens are more likely to leave the UK in the 5 years after a General Election, the number leaving will be only a fraction of those who have been here 3 years or more already, many of them for a decade or more, so the possibility hardly seems to justify denying all of them the vote. Besides, I could even argue that the EU citizens who leave the UK during the 5 years after a General Election in some sense “speak for” the EU citizens who may move to the UK after that election, not having had a vote.
So there doesn’t seem to be a rational justification for denying EU citizens a vote in General Elections (or referenda) on the basis that they have less stake in the outcome – or less responsibility for the decisions taken by the elected government, for example in terms of paying taxes.
What about other responsibilities? I’m thinking of the Colonel Blimps who “fought for this country” or rather whose parents or grandparents did. Well, many EU citizens could argue that their parents or grandparents fought on the same side in the same wars. More fundamentally, do we really want to grant the vote only to those who pass some test as to the contribution of previous generations?
OK, so what about future responsibilities for the defence of the realm? For the vast majority of us that simply comes down to paying the taxes that pay for professional armed forces, taxes that apply to EU migrant workers as much as to UK citizens. We don’t have conscription any more, but even if we did, would it even exclude the 18 year old children of EU citizens who’ve settled in the UK, children who may well be British citizens?
So there doesn’t seem to be a case for denying the vote to EU citizens living in the UK on the basis that they have less responsibility towards the country or have done less for it in the past.
What about ancestry, then? On one talk-show during the referendum campaign I heard a woman suggest that her family had been in the UK for 700 years and that this gave her greater rights than her interlocutor, who, as I recollect, could only claim a century or two. Well, I rather suspect everyone’s ancestry is more complex than that, judging by my own family history and that of those celebs who’ve explored theirs on some TV programme, the name of which escapes me just now. The practicality of DNA tests to measure Britishness would be undermined by the mongrel nature of our nation, as well as, perhaps, by the political need to ensure the Royal Family score highly. The blood-line idea is twaddle, isn’t it?
That leaves us with the idea of citizenship. But that is undermined on two counts:
First, EU citizens resident in the UK have never had to apply for UK citizenship. They have been treated equally with UK citizens under EU treaties (incorporated into UK law), for example, in their entitlement to grants and loans for higher education. They haven’t even had to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILTR) as some foreign residents need to.
And, as I mentioned in previous posts, people don’t change their citizenship unless they have to. Doing so may involve giving up some rights in their country of origin. People don’t necessarily make a decision to stay permanently – that is something that just happens. And they may reason that, depending on how the UK and other economies do, they might need to look for work in another EU country, Germany say, sometime in the future. It wouldn’t make sense applying for a UK passport. Besides, it costs around £1000 (for EU citizens) in the UK nowadays (an agenda item for the Brexit discussions, perhaps) and you have to do a stupid test, involving, I understand, the need to memorise the names of the Eastenders and Coronation Street pubs. If the only advantage is getting a vote, the price is too high for most people.
The right to participate in the democratic process is surely a right, not something you may have to pay for.
Second, and here’s the kicker, other UK residents born overseas do get a vote, even if they’ve been here less time than EU citizens. In general, non-EU citizens who want to reside in the UK either have to become UK citizens, giving them the right to vote, or apply for ILTR, which doesn’t confer the right to vote but is usually a necessary step to naturalisation.
So an EU citizen may have lived and worked in the UK for 10 years, the same as an American. But the American has had more incentive to naturalise, since doing so may be necessary to ensure continued residency, for example, if they wish to spend time outside the UK (which could result in ILTR status lapsing). Though, as I said at the outset, the American should have the right to vote even if they haven’t taken UK citizenship or even obtained ILTR.
And while we’re at it, why should one American living in the UK with ILTR status (or even without such status) not have a vote, while another who has become a UK citizen does have one? Especially if the American who has become a UK citizen has done so because they wished to spend a few years abroad before returning to the UK?!
It’s absurd that the right to participate in the UK’s democracy depends on the details of the process you have to follow to maintain residency rights.
The big inconsistency, though, is with Commonwealth and Irish citizens. When I first looked into this I thought Commonwealth citizens needed ILTR status in order to vote. I now realise when I read the relevant explanation more carefully that they only need to be in the UK legally:
“A qualifying Commonwealth citizen is someone who has leave to enter or remain in the UK, or does not require such leave.”
So, not only are Commonwealth-born UK residents more likely to have become UK citizens – in order to lock-in their right to reside in the UK – than are those from the EU who’ve come to live here under the EU’s free movement provisions and who haven’t needed to lock-in residency rights (at least up until the Brexit referendum), they don’t need to become a citizen to get a vote anyway.
It might be worth pointing out that the Commonwealth now includes some countries – Rwanda and Mozambique – that have no particular historic connection to the UK. They’ve merely joined the Commonwealth, perhaps out of dissatisfaction with their own former colonial power or simply to enhance their international profile or even just to create more competitive opportunities for their sportspeople! Of course, in terms of affecting the outcome of elections or referenda, the number of UK resident Rwandan and Mozambique citizens is insignificant. But it’s the principle that counts.
The franchise for UK general elections and national referenda is not only illogical but also discriminatory.
It should be amended forthwith on the principle of “If you live here, you can vote here”.
Furthermore, carelessness over this one detail may very well have cost us our EU membership, a disaster the scale of which only history will be able to judge, though perhaps they should place the portrait of David Cameron that, following tradition, will soon adorn the walls of No 10, right next to that of Lord North.
“No, no, no!!”, I was obliged to point out, adding, by way of explanation that:
Good grief.
After that I was hardly surprised – since your average journo seems not even to be an average Joe, but, to be blunt, an innumerate plagiarist – to read in the Evening Standard on the 13th itself:
See what they’ve done there? With a bit of help from Mr Google, of course.
In the event, it reached 34.4C on 13th, making it the hottest September day for 105 years.
Much was also made of the fact that we had 3 days in a row last week when the temperature broke 30C for the first time in September in 87 years.
But the significance of the 34.4C last Tuesday was understated.
The important record was that the temperature last Tuesday was the highest ever recorded so late in the year, since the only higher temperatures – 34.6C on 8th September 1911 (the year of the “Perfect Summer”, with the word “Perfect” used as in “Perfect Storm”) and 35.0C on 1st rising to 35.6C on 2nd during the Great Heatwave of 1906 – all occurred earlier in the month. By the way, in 1906 it also reached 34.2C on 3rd September. That’s 3 days in a row over 34C. Take that 2016. They recorded 34.9C on 31st August 1906 to boot, as they might well have put it back then.
No, what’s really significant this year is that we now know it’s possible for the temperature to reach 34.4C as late as 13th September which we didn’t know before.
I’m going to call this a “date record”, for want of a better term. Any date record suggests either a once in 140 years freak event (since daily temperature records go back that far, according to my trusty copy of The Wrong Kind of Snow) or that it’s getting warmer.
One way to demonstrate global warming statistically is to analyse the distribution of record daily temperatures, i.e. the hottest 1st Jan, 2nd Jan and so on. Now, if the climate has remained stable, you’d expect these daily records to be evenly distributed over time, a similar number each decade, for example, since 1875 when the records were first properly kept. But if the climate is warming you’d expect more such records in recent decades. I haven’t carried out the exercise, but I’d be surprised if we haven’t had more daily records per decade since 1990, say, than in the previous 115 years.
It occurs to me that another, perhaps quicker, way to carry out a similar exercise would be to look at the date records. You’d score these based on how many days they apply for. For example, the 34.4C on 13th September 2016 is also higher than the record daily temperatures for 12th, 11th, 10th and 9th September, back to that 34.6C on 8th September 1911. So 13th September 2016 “scores” 5 days.
Here’s a list of date records starting with the highest temperature ever recorded in the UK:
38.1C – 10th August 2003 – counts for 1 day, since, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we have to assume 10th August is the day when it “should” be hottest
36.1C – 19th August 1932 – 9 days
35.6C – 2nd September 1906 – 14 days
34.6C – 8th September 1911 – 6 days
34.4C – 13th September 2016 – 5 days
31.9C – 17th September 1898 – 4 days
31.7C – 19th September 1926 – 2 days
30.6C – 25th September 1895 – 6 days
30.6C – 27th September 1895 – 2 days
29.9C – 1st October 2011 – 4 days
29.3C – 2nd October 2011 – 1 day
28.9C – 5th October 1921 – 3 days
28.9C – 6th October 1921 – 1 day
27.8C – 9th October 1921 – 3 days
25.9C – 18th October 1997 – 9 days
And you could also compile a list of date records going back from 10th August, i.e. the earliest in the year given temperatures have been reached.
The list above covers a late summer/early autumn sample of just 70 days, but you can see already that the current decade accounts for 10 of those days, that is, around 14%, during 5% of the years. The 2000s equal and the 1990s exceed expectations in this very unscientific exercise.
Obviously I need to analyse the whole year to draw firmer conclusions. Maybe I’ll do that and report back, next time a heatwave grabs my attention.
It’s also interesting to note that the “freakiest” day in the series was 2nd September 1906, with a daily record temperature hotter than for any of the previous 13 days. 2nd freakiest was 19th August 1932 – suggesting (together with 2nd September 1906) that perhaps the real story is an absence of late August heatwaves in the global warming era – joint with 18th October 1997, a hot day perhaps made more extreme by climate change.
Am I just playing with numbers? Or is there a serious reason for this exercise?
You bet there is.
I strongly suspect that there’s now the potential for a sustained UK summer heatwave with many days in the high 30Cs. A “Perfect Summer” turbocharged by global warming could be seriously problematic. I breathe a sigh of relief every year we dodge the bullet.