The European Court
of Human
Rights has turned down (7th
May 2013) Harry Shindler’s
claim to be allowed to vote for an MP in the House of
Commons.
The full text
(which runs to 38
pages) can be read here!
Harry is 91. He
fought in World
War II at the Anzio Beach-head.[Anzio is south of Rome and north
of the stalemated
front line of Monte Cassino – The beach-head played an important
if bloody role
in the Allied advance in 1944].
Harry is
both a proud Briton and proud European.
The ECHR judgement
gives much
space to the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe [page 10 et seq.]
[The CoE comprises 47 signatory countries far beyond the
EU,
including Russia,
Turkey
and Armenia]
Neither the ECHR
nor the CoE are
agencies of the European Union!
The
Parliamentary Assembly
recommends as
follows [page 10 ]
Par.
39 “c. consider the possibility of harmonising member states’
laws in the
interests of maintaining the voting rights of their nationals
living in another
member state with regard to nation-wide elections and
referenda, especially
with a view to enabling votes to be cast by post or through
diplomatic or
consular missions;
d.
envisage, if appropriate, the drawing up of a protocol to the
European
Convention on Human Rights whereby member states would
undertake to respect
such voting rights for their nationals living in another
member state and
refrain from hindering the exercise thereof by any measure
whatever.
Further
it is noted [page 11]…
Par.
42 - 4. The Parliamentary Assembly believes that it is in the
interest of
states to ensure that their expatriate nationals continue to
actively exercise
their rights linked to nationality and contribute in a variety
of ways to the
political, economic, social and cultural development of their
countries of
origin
And
[page 11/12].
Par.
43 c. to take account of their expatriates’ interest in policy
making, in
particular concerning questions of nationality; political
rights, including
voting rights; economic rights, including taxation and pension
rights; social
rights, including social schemes; and cultural rights .
And
Again [page 12]!!
Par.
47 --b. grant electoral rights to all their citizens
(nationals), without
imposing residency requirements;
c.
facilitate the exercise of expatriates’ electoral rights by
providing for
absentee voting procedures
And
the analysis of the Parliamentary Assembly
comments continues to page 15…
***
The
report comments on the deliberations of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe which generally support the
observations given above.
***
Considerable
space is also afforded [pages 16-19] to deliberations of the Venice Commission –
which is another
offshoot of the Council of Europe and concerns itself with the
issue of
Democracy! This
account is an historical progress
and one should read from page 18
paragraph 68 onwards for the latest observations.
Note
well it recommends on ‘voting’ ---
Sub
paragraph 66. It ensures that citizens maintain ties with
their country of
origin and boosts their feeling of belonging to a nation of
which they are
members regardless of geographical, economic or political
circumstances.”
70.
In the case of states whose citizens live abroad in large
numbers, to the
extent that their votes could appreciably affect election
results, it seems
more appropriate to provide parliamentary representation for
the citizens
resident abroad by pre-defined numbers of members of
parliament elected by
them.
******
Pge
19 – para 74 The document lists the 35 States (out of the 47
in the CoE) which
permit unlimited voting by non-resident
nationals.
*************
In spite of all this
detail the ECHR
decided unanimously against Harry Shindler.
WHY?
The
legal argument centred on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention of
Human Rights.
“The
High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at
reasonable
intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure
the free
expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the
legislature.”
Summary---
THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.
Declares the complaint concerning Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2.
Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention.
You
can judge for yourself.
What
will Harry do now!
He
will take his case to the United Nations International Court
of Justice.
UNLESS – The
British Government
will take fair measures to uphold the Rights of
British Nationals to be able to influence the British
Government on
decisions made by HMG in
their name!
Much has been
written already on
why British Nationals – most especially those residing within
the EU/EEA –
should have this representation.
The first link
below has numerous comments by
British Nationals why this should be so…
You can make your
own
protestations and petition via the following two links.
www.votes-for-expat-brits.com Here to place your
observations.
and – direct to
the Government
site ---
Author
Brian Cave
– lefourquet@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment