Renounce your British Citizenship? So?

To go to the INDEX and beginning click here.

How many Britons abroad are prepared to renounce their nationality?

Britain ignores its citizens who live abroad.  James Preston, a businessman in Spain angrily declares he will renounce his British citizenship.  Yet he feels sick at feeling forced to do so.

Why does he do it?  He is denied representation at Westminster (the vote!) because he has lived outside of Britain for more than 15 years. 

He has fought before the High Court his demand to be represented as a Citizen in the British seat of power – the Parliament at Westminster.   His case and his appeal have been rejected. 

James Preston resents having the door slammed in his face.  Britain denies him the basic democratic right of representation.   He writes “We have concluded, therefore, that the contract between the State and my wife and I – the citizens – has been broken. We moved to Spain, an EU country, to represent British interests and find work, and not continue to claim unemployment benefit.” James Preston in his despair, intends to renounce his British citizenship and take out Spanish citizenship.

Britain, in this, acts as a dictator State which regards the citizen abroad as ‘subjects’ and not as free people with democratic rights.  The Government of Britain will not listen to the citizens abroad but still expects their obedience to the laws of  Britain. These are strong words but are they not true?

James Preston, is undoubtedly proud of his British (English) Ancestry which he can trace back for over 400 years. 

He left Britain in 1995.  He was then unemployed  but found work with a British company in Madrid, and has worked for British companies ever since.

He stills considers his soul is British, but in Spain you cannot hold dual citizenship. 

Because Britain will not grant him representation in Parliament he therefore feels that he has no alternative but to turn his back on Britain. 

But still the clammy mechanical claw of British bureaucracy might well hold claim on his estate at his death.

British Tax Law could still claim to his dying day that he is ‘domiciled in Britain’, because it says he will  retain his British domicile of birth!  You may think this outrageous and you are right to think so.  It is difficult  to cut yourself loose from the British State if you are born British.  The fact that his children are educated in Britain, and extraordinarily, the very fact that he has taken a case before the High Court in London to claim the right to vote displays in the eyes of the Revenue his ‘attachment’ to Britain.

It is incredible but true that for these reasons the estate he leaves could well be subject to taxation by the British State, even though he would die a Spanish citizen.

Mr. Preston also tells me that his children do not have full-blown British Citizenship but are considered as 'British by descent' because they were born in Spain. If they had been born in the UK they would be fully British.  They do not necessarily pass this British citizenship to their children. It is a crazy stupid mixed up world.  It is the last straw that, after having been insultingly refused the right to Representation, Britain could still claim a pound (£) of ‘flesh’.

It beggars belief that Britain, claiming to lead the world in Democracy so treats its own citizens who dare to live abroad.  It cannot desire, can it, that every British Citizen living abroad should renounce their citizenship? 

Should not Britain be proud of us who live abroad? To our neighbours we are the image of Britain.  Why are we ignored by our own country?

We want to be ambassadors for Britain, but Britain does not want us – except perhaps our money.

If you are moved then you can show your displeasure by writing to Mark Harper MP {Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform]– House of Commons London SW1A 0AA  -- harperm@parliament.uk

Elderly Britons in Europe and the Winter Fuel Payment.

To go to the Beginning and the INDEX click here

 Grit and determination are the bywords for many elderly Britons in Europe.
 It is time that the British public became aware that the elderly Briton in Europe is not treated fairly by the UK Government.  This winter has brought the situation sharply into focus.  Problems resulting from UK Government decisions are the cause.  ‘Freedom of Movement’ is understood to be one of the founding principles of the EU.  It was not foreseen that the British Government (consciously or not!) would hamper this ‘freedom’. The collapse of the £ has reduced the spending power of their pensions by over 25%.  The collapse of some investments for some - (q.v. Equitable Life) has worsened the situation. Some are looking into a financial chasm.  Many do not have inflation proofed private pensions and It would seem that inflation in France [at least] exceeds that in Britain.  The coming of the EU encouraged many to move to the continent.  Since 1973, the number of  retired Britons in France has gone from hardly measurable numbers to 54,000.   In the seven major western countries of Continental Europe there are now over 265,000 British Pensioners.  The emigration from the UK has slowed but not stopped.

 [view http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com/2011/11/british-pensioners-leave-britain-yet.html]  Emigration of young ‘hopeful’ pensioners is still exceeding the subsequent  deaths and those returning to the UK.  The poorest cannot afford to return!  Again and again the British pensioners abroad are treated as a different class of citizen by the UK, one hopes not deliberately, but through ignorance.  If it is not ignorance then it is an appalling failure of Government.  The pensioner in Europe expects the same treatment and respect from our own national Government as any

pensioner would be treated in the UK – not to be ignored.

Brian Cave.

              
-------------------------------------------

The letter below is from a pensioner caught in this predicament.

  We moved to France sixteen years ago, the year before the Winter Fuel Payment was instituted.  Since then, we have met many British expats, most of whom arrived in France more than six years after ourselves, and they, of course, do receive this allowance.  Whilst we do not, of course, hold this against them; good luck to them - I'm glad they get it. But it is this blatant discrimination by the British government, resulting in the older, more frail (and in many cases, poorer) pensioners being the ones to whom this vital heating allowance is denied and this really upsets me.  It beggars belief and I am absolutely astonished that those in successive governments have been unable to see this, not to mention their breaking of European rules (as outlined by David Burrage of the British Expats Association, Spain, and yourself, on many occasions.

  Like most of our friends, when we arrived in France aged 60, we were in good health.  However, as we all know, as the years go on, many of us are beset by various illnesses and the frailty of old age.  I have had several operations and many investigations in hospital for various internal and ophthalmic problems.  My husband had a hip replacement three years ago and two other operations since then.  He was diagnosed with lung cancer a year ago, for which he is being treated with chemotherapy.  He has suffered horrific and debilitating side effects and I am, of course, at the age of 77, his only carer.  We have no family, either here or in the U.K.  There have been improvements as well as setbacks in the progress of his illness

and further chemotherapy is planned.

    As you can imagine, this past year has been extremely hard on both of us and it is only with the support of the excellent French health professionals as well as the kindness of our friends and neighbours (both French and British) that we have managed to cope.   We live on a joint pension income of 12,000 pounds sterling per annum and have to draw on our very modest savings to supplement this.   Because of our low income, we downsized seven years ago to a tiny, one-bedroomed house which my husband converted from a carpenter's workshop but his illness and treatment cause him to feel the cold in the extreme and, in spite of the size of our house, I dread to think what our heating bill will be this Winter.  Having said this, I must emphasise that we are not moaning about our financial situation in general.  Although we both worked hard all our adult lives, we were never high earners and, obviously, our pensions and savings reflect this. However, the purpose of this letter is not to plead poverty  and we have never sought financial assistance from anyone, including both British and French governments. We are content to live modestly on what we have and we feel no envy of others who are financially better off than ourselves.  We have never, for one moment, regretted our decision to live in France, but it is so dreadfully unfair that we and others in our situation are not allowed to receive the Winter Fuel Payment from the British government when our compatriots do!  And, of course, there is nothing we can do about it as, having lived in France for more than fifteen years, we are now disenfranchised as well!   We do not seek anything to which we are not entitled as bona fide British pensioners who have worked hard all our lives and paid our dues.  I would be most interested to hear someone in Parliament give a watertight reason for this appalling act of unforgivable discrimination!
     We shall always be eternally grateful for the tireless work that both you and and David Burrage  have done to try to secure the WFP for us as well as so many other rights which are denied to British expats.

I Accuse

To go to the beginning and index  click here

 (Update 2013 - This article was written in 2012 - The winter of 2012/13 was much the same with an average minimum temperature of 1.8 degrees near Cahors, with some nights to minus 5. Yet the British Government claim that we are warmer than Torquay.)

The terrible weather which came to us in France last February; was it so unusual?  Some elderly Britons in particular who retired to the Continent suffered.  But were they worse off than those who stayed in Britain?  Is the winter climate at its worst, worse than any in Britain?  The answer is, ‘yes’. 

The conditions of last February brings to mind the novel ‘Jacquou le Croquant’.  It opens in the setting of a terrible winter of the early 19^th century when people died of cold in their hovels.  The snow lay deep and the wolves bayed in the Dordogne countryside as even then, [at that time even], after Napoleon and after the French Revolution, the peasants were as ill treated as before.  It was as though nothing had changed and the peasants still had to fight against the tyranny of the landed gentry. Plus ça change, la plus c’est la même chose! The Government was stubborn, and the winter was Siberian as it was this last winter.

Should the British Government have any concern for British Citizens Abroad? Yes of course.  For those who live in Europe the principle of ‘freedom of movement’ should prevail.  But the British Government resists supporting the retired Briton Abroad.  And some are in consequence deficient in funds.

My thoughts turn to another French author, Zola. He felt deeply for those unfairly treated.  In January 1898 it was he who threw down the two words ‘J’accuse’ in the journal Aurore when he challenged the French Government over the case of Dreyfus, a Jewish soldier who was unfairly convicted of treason.  Zola brought shame to the Government for its stubbornness and ill thinking .

Governments and tyrannies will not change unless they are forced to do so.  We fondly imagine that we live in a democratic and reasoning society in Western Europe. It is more fondly felt than fact. Democracy does not exist for the Britons Abroad.  The British Government denies it to them.

Times may not be as harsh as in the 19^th century but elements of crass stupidity and deafness to the needs of the people are still with us.  These are matters to which we who live in Europe should attend.  The British Government, which we all would like to perceive as a bastion of democracy, is as stubborn and as deaf as any.

It is deaf to the cries of the Britons Abroad that they should be recognised.  It is deaf to the cries of the elderly Briton Abroad  that their needs should be recognised.

Let me borrow the words of Zola. I accuse the British Government of indifference towards its citizens abroad.   How truly difficult it is for any such citizen to stand up for himself.  How difficult it is for the citizen who is eighty five years old.  How impossible when the citizen is cold and deficient in funds. How difficult it is when opinions of Britons at home are manipulated by the media  against him. 

In the eyes of many in Britain today, the Briton who dares to live abroad is dishonoured at home.  We have Lord Lipsey who dares to say that the Briton Abroad should never be represented in Parliament.  We have governments who sign to treaties in Europe which guarantee that the elderly Briton who retires to Europe will receive the same consideration from the British Government as those who remain at home.  But in the outcome, they are deprived of income and support which those who stay at home might enjoy.  The winter fuel payment which all the elderly enjoy in Britain has not been received by the most elderly of  the British Citizens in Europe.  It was first introduced as a supplement for the elderly but it was refused to those who had retired abroad.  The Pensioner in Europe cannot make his feelings felt through the ballot box because the government has not granted to him the permanent citizen’s right to vote.

Lord Lipsey again says that such pensioners have no part to play in the economy of Britain.  Yet their pensions and much of their expenditure is demonstrably part of the British Economy.  The same British Economy prevents these pensioners opening bank accounts in Britain.  The attitude against the pensioners is further hardened by articles in the press illustrating the pensioners sunning themselves on the sunny summer shores of Spain.  In Barcelona it was minus 7 overnight this February. Most of Europe  freezes every winter, this year worse than is usual.  In Central Italy eighty centimetres of snow fell.  In Central France in February 2012 we suffered the same climate that Jacquou suffered in 1815.

The summer sun does not allay the winter's frosts.   
Successive nights last February brought temperatures of minus ten.  Numbers of British elderly residents suffered from shortage of cash, frozen pipes and a cold heartless Government, too mean to care for its elderly citizens – too mean to even grant them the natural rights of any citizen.  It is too mean to grant them a voice.

This stubbornness of the British Government is felt across the world.  Imagine the elderly couple whose children have set up home in distant Australia.  The parents would like to join them in their last few decades of life.  They are deterred because the British Government would freeze their State pensions and as the years roll by they would become poorer and poorer. 

The cold heart of Britain’s Governments is felt most severely by those who have given so much for Britain in their working lives and still remain ambassadors for British grit and determination, without the support of their Nation’s Government.

The Criteria for Representation

To go to the index for more on this subject click here

Last year on Tuesday 27^th December 2011 There was an exchange of views with Lord Lipsey on the BBC Today programme.  It can be heard via the following link. (It takes time to upload)

The Exchange on Radio.

The essence is whether Britons who live abroad should have the Right of Representation in the British Parliament.  This ‘Right’ is often expressed as the ‘Right to Vote’.

What does ‘Right to Vote’ really Mean?

Many people are not clear what they mean by ‘the right to vote’.  

In its very essence when you vote, you are saying “I wish that this person for whom I cast my vote will represent my interests in the discussions in Parliament which will affect my interests.   I expect that this person (the MP) will make efforts to understand my point of view and will make every effort to interpret that point of view before the other fellow MPs.”

The meaning is not “I am casting my vote for this MP who then can act in a manner which is quite immaterial to my interests.”   The vote is only effective if the MP for whom the vote is cast actually knows something about the voter!

It only makes sense to have the ‘vote’ if you have the need as expressed above.

So we ought to continue by speaking of ‘Representation’ rather than ‘having the vote’. We must also explore the nature of ‘need’.  ‘Having the Vote’ is synonymous with ‘having Representation’.  Below this is the thought behind the phrase ‘having the vote’, when it is used.

Unfortunately, through historical accident the criteria for having Representation has been separated from the need for Representation. 

What are the existing criteria to have the ‘Right to Representation’?

Lord Lipsey asserted that ‘taxation is the main basis of representation’. He also asserted that ‘one has to live in Britain to vote in Britain’.  He did not say (but he didn’t get the opportunity) that one has to be a British National to be able to vote. 

None of these three ‘criteria’ as currently used as test of need are meaningful.

1.   Taxability –payment of tax to the British State –being part of the Economy of the Nation. 

Millions of people who are resident in Britain and who are also British Nationals pay no income tax, But are politically represented. That is because they have low incomes. But they are represented. They are however taxable if they had an income, but the fact is they pay no income tax to the British State. They remain members of society.

There are however thousands, resident in Britain, who do pay income tax but have no representation (e.g. foreign nationals). They are members of the British society and usually very worthwhile members.

Hundreds of thousands who live abroad pay income tax to the UK., and yet do not have representation. (All ex- military, local Government workers, teachers, fireman, police retirees.)

Lord Lipsey mentioned the payment of VAT on  purchases and claimed that the Briton Abroad  does not pay VAT to the British State, and therefore are not part of the economy of the country.  Yes they do, and to that extent yes they are part of the economy.  This is particularly so within the confines of Europe where the principle of free trade – a founding principle  of the ‘Common Market’ - prevails.   Thousands of British people living in Europe frequently buy goods from Britain.  To instance this I have purchased, electric fencing, microwave oven, food mixer, trousers, dress patterns, jumpers, socks, two sofas, watch batteries, books, CDs and DVDs, some rugs, rose plants, and more within the past three years from Britain. On all these VAT was paid to the British State. We have even purchased food items, but not our daily bread – but daily bread carries no VAT in the UK.  We have as it happens purchased a bread maker from the UK. (All goods were cheaper to buy including delivery, from the UK, than in France. The sofas are of better quality.)

Moreover since so many (more than 1 million old age pensioners to start the count) have incomes from Britain, those enormous numbers all have a shared interest in the Economy of Britain.

If we see this from Lord Lipsey’s point of view then most certainly they should be represented and his arguments have no basis. 

Many people have  reasons to be concerned about the Economy of Britain  but have no vote - 

Residence.

If one is a foreign national and resident in Britain then one is taxed in Britain and subject to all British laws  but one is not represented.  So a Frenchman living and working in Britain has no vote!  [But he has the vote and is Represented in the National Assembly in Paris!]

Those British Nationals who have lived abroad for less than fifteen years can be represented.

So this criterion of ‘residence’ is not a hard and fast fixed factor.

One might reasonably claim that many non-nationals have a need for Representation but do not have it.  I observe that this argument would also apply to all European Citizens in any State of the EU.

Nationality.

Some non-British nationals can vote (be represented?) if they reside in Britain. All Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who are resident in Britain can register for the vote and can be thereby represented.  They need not have any income and therefore may not be taxed. 

Representation is here related to a peculiar historical circumstance of Nationality and Residence together.

The Commonwealth countries do not always have laws in sympathy with this spirit.  A UK citizen does not necessarily enjoy the same rights as an Australian in Australia!

(Australians in Australia are obliged to vote in Australian elections).

British nationals living abroad, at the present time (2012) have no permanent representation in Britain.

So various non-British nationals can vote in Britain and large numbers of British Nationals  who live abroad cannot.

What should be the criterion for a Right of Representation?

The sole requirement for Representation should be the very need itself to be recognised. It is not a gift to be handed down from a 'beneficent Government' but an inherent Right arising from the need.

[Need is not just related to material matters - it involves an emotional relationship as well. Surely if one has no emotional or material need then representation is not desired. One is not compelled to avail oneself of  the Right to representation.]

This need has a triple aspect.  The intensity of each varies according to the individual citizen.

 

1. That of social concern.

Your immediate family interests.  And also, your relationship as a British national with the State where you are resident.

2. Economic involvement.

Where one’s money comes from, and where it is invested or spent.

3. Emotional association to the ‘homeland’

The love of one’s country and its performance on the World Stage.

Since it would impossible to quantify the special needs of each Briton Abroad, the single criterion that would be all inclusive is that of NATIONALITY. It is up to each person to know whether they have suifficient need to exercise their right to representation.

The need whereby Britons Abroad should have representation is spelled out in detail in the article linked below.

http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com/2011/08/to-all-british-expatriates-everywhere.html

To support the campaign for Representation for Britons Abroad go to

www.votes-for-expat-brits.com

and please leave a comment 

--

*****************************
Brian and Helen Cave
le Fourquet, Gourdon, 46300, France

Tel-    ++33(0)565 41 42 69
email:- lefourquet@orange.fr
web site:- www.lefourquet.net

Blogs :-- http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com/    Follow this site

The case of whether James Preston can vote hits the sand?

To go to the start and the  INDEX click here

Who is James Preston?  He is a English businessman who lives in Spain. His last home in Britain was in Wandsworth, London,  more than 15 years ago.  When he applied to Wandsworth Council in 2009 to be registered as an overseas voter, he was told that because he left for Spain more than 15 years ago, he could not register as a voter.

Mr. Preston took the case to the High Court in London, with his Counsel acting ‘pro bono publico’ (for the public cause and without a fee).  

The final (almost) phase of this was brought to judgement on 8^th November 2011 before the judges Lord Justice Elias and Mr. Justice King.  The case number is CO/3344/2010

Sad to say the judges rejected Mr. Preston’s case.

Is it stuck in the sand?  Well there are some interesting comments on the case both from the Counsel for the defence (the Council and the Government) and judges.

Let us look at these.

1.                  Mr Coppel (Counsel  for the Government) …  “Imposing a period of fifteen years as the cut-off point for eligibility to vote from overseas does not appear to be either disproportionate (etc)…………… Over such a time period, the applicant may reasonably be regarded as having weakened the link between himself and the United Kingdom … and he cannot argue that he is affected by the acts of political institutions to the same extent as resident citizens. It may be noted that in European Union countries, persons in the position of the applicant may generally vote in European Parliament elections. It is also open to the applicant, whether or not he so wishes, to seek to obtain the vote in the country of residence, if necessary by applying for citizenship.”

I am profoundly insulted by the last sentence.  These people confound VOTING with REPRESENTATION.   They assume that all that is necessary is the physical act of  THE VOTE!!  Help us all.  Are these ‘counsels’ these ‘civil servants’ so utterly blinkered?   We citizens need to be able to have our views HEARD.  We need to be able to speak to those who make laws which affect us and our families still resident in the UK.  We want our views heard on the matter of how our income is derived and the regulations which affect our savings. We want our views heard on the terms of treaties which affect our lives within the EU, and the future of  the structures and life within the UK to which , one day, many of us may need to return.

The link between us and the UK does not diminish with time.  We are not so much less affected than the general run of residents in the UK and getting less so with time. It is just not true!

Do these people realise that we, who live in Europe communicate instantaneously with our friends and families in Britain, and that we are aware as instantaneously  through television and the internet with events in Britain as THEY HAPPEN!

Lord Justice Elias wrote in his submission

I accept that the claimant and others who have provided witness statements are genuinely upset about the rule and consider it to be unjust and unnecessary. The right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right and the claimant is aggrieved by its removal. It does not, however, follow that disenfranchisement constitutes a deterrence to free movement.   For reasons I have given, in my judgement, it does not.

The matter of ‘free movement’ is the central point of Mr. Preston’s argument in this case.  It was on that very point that the judgement went against him

BUT

The Lord Justice Elias has also said ‘The right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right’. 

Lord Justice Elias  continued  Strictly therefore the issue of justification does not arise.  However, I shall deal with it briefly in case I am wrong on the first point. 

In my view, the 15 year rule is a proportionate interference with the right of free movement.  The Government was entitled to hold that there is a legitimate objective which the rule is designed to achieve, namely to remove the right to vote from those whose links with the UK have diminished and who are not, for the most part at least, directly affected by the laws passed in the UK.  

In short – If the Government are only seeking to remove the right to vote from those who have no links with the UK – then this obviously HAS FAILED. 

I and many like me have demonstrably very strong links with the UK and will have till the grave welcomes us.  

To remove my right to be REPRESENTED in the seat of Government of my Nation is dictatorship.  Britain, is in this respect a non-democratic Nation. The Government ordains that the voice of  many of its citizens is unwanted.

This case will go to appeal.

The Full Judgement can be read here.

What YOU can do

1. Give your opinion to Mark Harper MP psmarkharper@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

Mr. Harper is responsible for promoting a change in the law.

2. Make sure you give a comment on www.votes-for-expat-brits.com

3. Post this item to other British people.