BY LUCY CAULKETT
Two Brits living abroad have rightfully lost a High Court battle in which they hoped to win the right to vote in June’s EU referendum. Currently, only Britons living in the UK are entitled to take part in the June 27th referendum. Brits who have lived in the EU for more than 15 years, cannot vote.
The legal battled was initiated by World War Two veteran Harry Shindler, 94, residing in Italy, and British lawyer, Jacquelyn MacLennan, who lives in Belgium. The two Britons argued that the are affected by the in-out vote on EU membership, and called for a judicial review, asking judges to declare that section two of the EU Referendum Act 2015, which established “the 15-year rule”, unlawfully restricted their right to freedom of movement under EU law.
But their application was correctly rejected by the judges who ruled that the section did not restrict their rights. They plan to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgement. Richard Stein, from the law firm Leigh Day, said he would fight for all British citizens living elsewhere in the EU to vote in the referendum which will have “a very real impact” on their lives.
The ruling is correct because British residents of the EU are very likely to be biased in their judgement and cannot offer an objective opinion on the EU debate since they are based in other EU countries and would therefore have a vested interest to vote against leaving the EU, rather than giving a genuine subjective vote on the hugely divisive topic. Britons resident in the UK will have the best interests of the country at heart, which ever way they vote, especially those with no immediate plans to live in an EU country.
The hot EU vote calls for a sober evaluation of the best way forward for the country, with the facts properly analysed by voters, and a conclusion arrived at on the basis of how our future place in or out of the EU will impact our nation. British citizens living in EU countries will have their own personal interests uppermost in their minds and will be inevitably prejudicial in their outlook on this very important matter which seeks the collective view of the British people living in England.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The Belgian lawyer seeking appeal to the Supreme Court will get no joy in the end because principles are principles. The argument that ”the 15 year rule” unlawfully restricts his freedom of movement is misguided and will therefore be similarly thrown out. The right to freedom of movement relates to both workers rights and the rights of EU subjects to freely move between membership states. It has nothing to do with an EU referendum vote. This lawyer needs to check the underlying basis of her argument properly.
this month, the court heard up to two million ex pats were being denied the right to take part in the referendum.
Mr Shindler – who has lived in Italy since 1982 – and other campaigners argue the 15-year cut-off is arbitrary and that rules governing UK general elections, the basis for the referendum franchise, are not being applied evenly.
His lawyers say the EU Referendum Act extends the right to vote to peers, and to Gibraltar residents who would not normally be able to take part in general elections, but not long-term expats.
Ms MacLennan said: “If British citizens maintained British citizenship, that brings with it rights, obligations and a connection with this country,” and choosing 15 years was “like sticking a dart in a dartboard”.
But the judges said they did not consider the 15-year rule was arbitrary “in any legally significant sense” and a “bright line rule” was needed to identify a point at which extended residence abroad “might indicate a weakening of ties with the UK”.
The government has welcomed the court’s ruling and says the franchise was agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
‘Resident aliens’
Aidan O’Neill QC, for the expats, told the court a victory for the “Leave” campaign could lead to Mr Shindler and Ms MacLennan becoming “resident aliens” in Europe.
They would no longer be EU citizens and their right to live, work, own property, and receive health care free at the point of use, could be placed in jeopardy, he said.
James Eadie QC, for the government, argued the 2015 referendum legislation did not interfere with free movement rights and was not open to challenge on EU law grounds.
The impact of a “leave” vote on those caught by the rule could not be predicted and a win for Mr Shindler and Ms MacLennan would make it impossible to hold the referendum on 23 June, as planned, he added.
In their manifesto, the Conservatives pledged to scrap the 15-year rule for expats voting in elections. The government says it remains committed to doing so, but stresses that the plan is not connected to the referendum
Vote being cast
‘Arbitrary’ cut-off
Earlier this month, the court heard up to two million expats were being denied the right to take part in the referendum.
Mr Shindler – who has lived in Italy since 1982 – and other campaigners argue the 15-year cut-off is arbitrary and that rules governing UK general elections, the basis for the referendum franchise, are not being applied evenly.
His lawyers say the EU Referendum Act extends the right to vote to peers, and to Gibraltar residents who would not normally be able to take part in general elections, but not long-term expats.
Ms MacLennan said: “If British citizens maintained British citizenship, that brings with it rights, obligations and a connection with this country,” and choosing 15 years was “like sticking a dart in a dartboard”.
But the judges said they did not consider the 15-year rule was arbitrary “in any legally significant sense” and a “bright line rule” was needed to identify a point at which extended residence abroad “might indicate a weakening of ties with the UK”.
The government has welcomed the court’s ruling and says the franchise was agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar
