A Private Member’s Bill to extend the franchise to all British citizens living abroad is currently under consideration in Parliament. Susan Collard explains how these proposed reforms, which have significant implications for democratic participation, have become caught up in parliamentary procedure and partisan disputes

Collard, Susan

English

LSE Research Online

	‘Votes	for	life’	for	overseas	electors?	Principles,process	and	party	politicsA	Private	Member’s	Bill	to	extend	the	franchise	to	all	British	citizens	living	abroad	is	currently	under	consideration	inParliament.	Susan	Collard	explains	how	these	proposed	reforms,	which	have	significant	implications	fordemocratic	participation,	have	become	caught	up	in	parliamentary	procedure	and	partisan	disputes.	A	map	of	the	world	by	number	of	residents	with	British	citizenship	in	2006.	From	the	BBC	report	titled	‘Brits	Abroad’.	Picture:	TastyCakes	onEnglish	Wikipedia,	via	a	CC	BY-SA	3.0	licence/Wikimedia	CommonsThe	turmoil	around	Brexit	dominating	British	politics	over	recent	weeks	has	turned	the	public	gaze	away	from	otherbills	going	through	Parliament.	Yet	one	of	these	is	a	bill	with	significant	implications	for	British	democracy:	theOverseas	Electors	Bill	2017–19,	a	Private	Member’s	Bill	sponsored	by	the	Conservative	MP	for	Montgomeryshire,Glyn	Davies.	The	Bill	aims	to	introduce	‘votes	for	life’	for	Britons	living	abroad	by	abolishing	the	current	‘15	yearrule’	which	means	UK	citizens	lose	their	vote	15	years	after	leaving	the	country.	Since	an	estimated	3.5m	Britishcitizens	could	be	affected,	this	Bill	would	represent	a	major	extension	of	the	franchise.	It	also	marks	an	importantdeparture	from	a	system	where	residence	rather	than	citizenship	has	been	the	traditional	basis	for	voting	rights.This	Bill	deserves	attention,	not	only	because	it	raises	important	questions	of	principle	over	defining	the	demos,	butalso	because	it	illustrates	the	obscure	parliamentary	procedures	that	govern	Private	Members’	Bills,	and	in	doingso,	goes	to	the	heart	of	party	politics.Principles	and	practice:	extending	the	franchise	to	all	non-residentcitizensThe	UK	is	unusual	in	that	voting	rights	are	not	enshrined	in	a	constitution	but	in	electoral	law,	and	the	complexlegacy	of	Empire	has	engendered	a	‘thin’	concept	of	citizenship.	Legislation	in	1985	introduced	a	time-limitedfranchise	(initially	five	years)	for	non-resident	citizens,	many	of	whom	who	had	campaigned	for	this	following	Britishmembership	of	the	EEC.	It	was	hotly	contested	by	those	who	believed	it	contravened	the	sacrosanct	principle	ofgeographical	connection	to	a	constituency,	traditionally	the	bedrock	of	the	British	parliamentary	system.	But	overtime	and	after	several	changes	in	the	legislation,	the	idea	of	unrestricted	expatriate	voting	has	gradually	becomemore	acceptable	as	technology	has	transformed	global	communications,	allowing	people	to	follow	domestic	affairsin	real	time.	By	removing	the	cut-off	point,	this	Bill	would	align	the	UK	with	most	other	European	states,	and	fulfilexpatriate	demands	for	recognition	of	citizenship	not	residence	as	the	basis	for	their	voting	rights.Supporters	of	the	Bill	make	four	main	arguments:Democratic Audit:  ‘Votes for life’ for overseas electors? Principles, process and party politics Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-12-17Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/12/17/votes-for-life-for-overseas-electors-principles-process-and-party-politics/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/1.	 It	would	bring	‘electoral	justice’	to	all	UK	citizens	living	abroad	who	are	currently	the	object	of	discriminationbecause	of	their	place	of	residence.2.	 It	recognises	the	time	limit	on	voting	rights	as	arbitrary,	introduced	in	another	era	when	living	abroad	could	beassumed	to	lead	to	a	loss	of	connection	with	the	UK.3.	 It	is	part	of	a	wider	ambition	to	strengthen	British	democracy.4.	 It	would	recognise	the	importance	of	the	‘soft	power’	of	British	citizens	around	the	world	in	contributing	to	theUK’s	interests,	especially	important	in	a	post-Brexit	era.The	politics	of	overseas	votingThe	Bill	has	been	presented	as	‘non-political’,	but	this	is	problematic	since	‘votes	for	life’	was	included	inConservative	Party	manifestos	in	2015	and	2017,	and	because	historically	the	issue	of	overseas	voting	has	beenpolitically	controversial.	In	previous	parliamentary	debates,	Labour	hotly	contested	the	enfranchising	of	Britonsabroad,	not	only	because	it	challenged	the	established	principles	of	a	constituency-based	democracy,	but	becauseit	was	seen	as	‘international	gerrymandering’.	Considered	to	be	disproportionately	affluent,	expatriates	wereassumed	to	be	mainly	Conservative	voters	and	vivid	language	was	used	by	Labour	MPs	to	denounce	them	as‘people	who	have	put	two	fingers	up	to	this	country’,	or	as	‘tax	dodgers,	crooks,	thieves	and	wastrels’.Twenty	years	on,	the	discourse	of	opposition	has	changed,	but	objections	remain,	albeit	less	clear-cut:	in	thedebates	over	this	Bill	so	far,	democratic	principles	and	partisan	interests	have	featured	much	less	in	Labour’sarguments	than	concerns	for	hard-pushed	and	under-resourced	electoral	administrators	who	will	carry	the	burdenof	implementing	the	Bill,	as	highlighted	by	the	Electoral	Commission	and	the	Association	of	Electoral	Administrators(AEA).	This	new	official	line	of	opposition	was	justified	by	Shadow	Minister	for	the	Constitution,	Cat	Smith,	in	theSecond	Reading	debate	in	February,	and	confirmed	in	a	letter	to	veteran	expat	campaigner	Harry	Shindler	in	June.During	the	four	sittings	of	the	Committee	Stage	in	October	and	November,	it	was	fleshed	out	in	a	long	list	ofproposed	technical	amendments	and	new	clauses,	though	none	were	successful.The	politics	of	parliamentary	processBut	Labour’s	opposition	to	this	Bill	is	also	motivated	by	objections	relating	to	parliamentary	process.	Shortly	beforethe	Bill’s	Second	Reading	in	February	it	became	clear	that	the	government	was	backing	Glyn	Davies’s	Bill	as	a‘Handout	Bill’.	The	use	of	a	Private	Member’s	Bill	to	introduce	a	party	manifesto	pledge	was	criticised	as	an	abuseof	executive	power,	undermining	backbenchers’	limited	opportunities	to	present	legislation.	Yet	this	practice	is	notuncommon,	and	few	such	bills	become	law	without	government	or	cross-party	support.	However,	since	theOverseas	Electors	Bill	redefines	the	franchise,	Labour	also	argued	that	a	Public	Bill	would	have	been	moreappropriate,	enabling	a	wider	discussion	including	votes	at	16,	supported	by	several	opposition	parties.	Itresponded	to	the	use	of	the	Handout	Bill	by	trying	(unsuccessfully)	to	‘talk	it	out’	(otherwise	known	as	‘filibustering’),a	classic	tactic	from	the	arcane	set	of	rules	and	procedures	governing	Private	Members’	Bills	that	has	been	muchcriticised	by	the	House	of	Commons’	Procedure	Committee.Labour	renewed	its	procedural	attack	on	the	Bill	during	its	Money	Resolution	debate	in	October,	by	adoptinganother	tactical	device	not	used	since	1912,	to	table	an	amendment	that	would,	if	successful,	have	prevented	itsimplementation	by	limiting	the	necessary	expenditure.	This	was	in	retaliation	to	the	government’s	refusal	of	aMoney	Resolution	for	the	‘Parliamentary	Constituencies	Bill’	sponsored	by	the	Labour	MP	Afzal	Khan,	which	aimsto	maintain	the	number	of	constituencies	at	650,	contravening	the	government’s	planned	reduction	to	600.During	the	committee	stage	that	followed,	Labour	appeared	again	to	be	trying	to	talk	out	the	Overseas	Electors	Billwith	more	proposed	amendments,	until	proceedings	came	to	an	abrupt	conclusion	in	the	Fourth	Sitting:	it	wouldseem	the	whips	had	come	to	an	agreement	to	defer	the	debate.Principles,	process	or	politics?Democratic Audit:  ‘Votes for life’ for overseas electors? Principles, process and party politics Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-12-17Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/12/17/votes-for-life-for-overseas-electors-principles-process-and-party-politics/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/The	real	motives	behind	Labour’s	opposition	to	this	Bill	are	unclear	but	are	probably	a	complex	mix	of	principles,process	and	politics,	reflecting	different	views	within	the	party:	the	language	of	adversity	is	less	explicit	than	in	thepast,	but	partisan	undercurrents	are	still	palpable	and	there	is	no	evidence	that	the	current	leader	has	accepted	thathis	earlier	categorisation	of	Britons	living	abroad	as	disloyal	tax	exiles	is	now	outdated.Debate	will	resume	at	the	Report	Stage	on	25	January	2019,	notwithstanding	possible	disruptions	to	theparliamentary	timetable.	New	amendments	will	be	tabled,	and	the	Bill	could	still	be	talked	out.	If	it	should	progressto	the	House	of	Lords,	it	will	lose	the	security	of	the	government’s	(fragile)	majority.Many	technical	aspects	of	the	Bill	still	deserve	further	discussion,	such	as	the	legal	definition	of	residence	and	itsimpact	on	place	of	registration,	the	regulation	of	the	permissibility	of	party	donors	abroad	and	the	impact	ofsignificantly	increased	numbers	of	overseas	electors	on	constituencies	highlighted	by	the	Liberal	Democrats;although	the	principle	underpinning	this	Bill	is	simple,	its	implementation	will	be	complex.All	previous	debates	on	overseas	voting	concluded	with	a	compromise	between	the	parties,	but	since	the	mainissue	is	no	longer	the	length	of	a	time	restriction,	it	is	not	clear	how	a	‘Goldilocks	solution	somewhere	in	the	middle’might	emerge	this	time.	If	it	should,	proceedings	so	far	suggest	it	will	come	not	from	the	floor	of	either	House	butfrom	negotiations	in	the	backrooms.	The	interpretation	of	opposition	to	votes	for	life	as	‘grounded	in	[petty]	partypolitics’,	has	been	criticised	as	doing	‘grave	disservice	to	broader	and	pressing	issues	about	who	the	UK’sdemocracy	should	work	for’.	However,	the	debates	on	this	Bill	so	far	surely	confirm	that	issues	around	the	franchiseare	indeed	fundamentally	framed	by	party	politics.	To	acknowledge	this	is	not	to	deny	the	importance	of	the	widerissues,	but	to	ignore	it	suggests	a	failure	to	read	between	the	lines	and	behind	the	scenes	of	parliamentarydiscourse.Readers	who	would	like	to	know	more	about	the	progress	of	this	Bill	and	about	overseas	voting	more	generally	canvisit	a	new	website:	www.britonsvotingabroad.co.ukThis	post	represents	the	views	of	the	author	and	not	those	of	Democratic	Audit.About	the	authorSusan	Collard	is	a	Senior	Lecturer	in	Politics	at	the	University	of	Sussex.	Her	teaching	expertise	is	in	French	andEuropean	politics	and	her	current	research	interests	revolve	around	issues	relating	to	transnationalism	and	thepolitics	of	voting	across	borders.	Similar	PostsWhat	happens	when	the	voting	age	is	lowered	to	16?	A	decade	of	evidence	from	AustriaHow	Private	Members’	legislation	improved	local	government	social	valueGeneral	election	2019:	a	postcode	lotteryVoters	dislike	disproportionality	in	electoral	systems	–	even	when	it	benefits	the	party	they	supportGeneral	election	2019:	what	are	the	parties	saying	about	electoral	reform?Democratic Audit:  ‘Votes for life’ for overseas electors? Principles, process and party politics Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-12-17Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/12/17/votes-for-life-for-overseas-electors-principles-process-and-party-politics/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/

‘Votes for life’ for overseas electors?: Principles, process and party politics

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/109776/1/dit_com_2018_12_17_votes_for_life_for_overseas_electors_principles.pdf

‘Votes for life’ for overseas electors?: Principles, process and party politics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online