I thought it hilarious that a UK passport was used. Admittedly an old EU one, but still.....
Has no-one heard of Brexit?
P.S. Not a fan of Brexit myself.
My passport got renewed post referendum but prior to the official exit and the buggers kept the EU format but didn't keep the words European Union.
I was not a happy camper.
I find this a very strange thing for a person to care about.
Pet peeve which pisses me off enormously. Brexit changed my life for the worse. Massive changes all of us impacted by it. For many, on an existential level. I'm fortunate in that I can change my citizenship easily. Others aren't so lucky. Many of the people who were most impacted by it were not even allowed to vote in the referendum. Myself included. Had those people been allowed to vote, it could have swung the result. Receiving an EU format passport but without the European Union header, with me still technically being within the EU, was simply one more example of overzealous British Brexit blindness.
Are you willing to say what your citizenship(s) is/are? Did you live in the UK when the vote occurred? Were you over 18? Do you have dual citizenship? How are you able to change to a new citizenship that you didn't previously have? Did you change it? Who did you think should be able to vote that didn't? I can't think of a single person who should have been able to vote that didn't. Were you thinking that people under 18 should have voted? Why do you think it wasn't a fair referendum? Please explain. I'll listen.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry/irate/indignant/incensed/livid/irascible/choleric, as you are now, I'm just trying to understand why you feel that way. You left a lot of important details out of your explanation.
I'm English (UK and ex-EU citizen), well over 18, ex-civil servant, permanently resident in Spain and with all my data fully up-to-date at the nearest British Consulate.
Fully legal in the EU and the UK.
I never voted in UK general elections while living abroad as I had no on-the-ground day-to-day experience of what it was like living there. That was a personal decision taken so as not to 'interfere' in a situation which for the most part I wasn't being affected by.
It didn't make me not British though. I have put my life on the line working for the UK government in efforts against organised crime.
So, along came an ill thought out, ill planned and even worse executed referendum that would have potentially devasting effects on EU citizens living in the UK and UK residents living within the EU, and a huge swathe of 'voters' with legitimate voting interests were denied their right to vote due to prior legislation that was aimed at election voting. Denied a vote in the single most important voting event in literally decades.
The EU has cross pollinated relationships of all kinds for the entire lives of some people. Freedom of movement promoted today's reality.
IMO, it was criminal that the UK government got away with it and that opposition parties basically did nothing about it either.
The very people who were going to suffer the most and the longest were simply cut off from the decision making process.
To make matters worse, if ever there was a legitimate reason for younger voters to participate, Brexit was it. They were refused a voice too.
What came later, the illegal activity during the campaigning, the lies and distortion was just the icing on a very rancid cake.
Dual nationality (the last time I investigated) was very difficult to get.
I know three people with dual citizenship, so it can't be that hard to get. There must be millions like that if I personally know three of them. Also, you must be extremely happy that the 15 year limit was abolished in March 2021, making your concerns merely of historical noteworthiness.
I can be partly sympathetic to the idea that ex-pats should be able to vote, but I'm not entirely in agreement. In my country, people get free health care, (but we pay through the nose through taxes for it) so there are lots of ex-pats who live permanently overseas (and pay no taxes to us from overseas) and come back to my country whenever they need health care. That doesn't feel right. They are getting something for nothing. If you can vote in a country that you never live in, and never will return to, and don't pay taxes to, that also feels like you are getting something for nothing. So I'm not really convinced by your arguments.
What the UK govt did certainly wasn't criminal. The highest court examined what they did and said it was legal. I can see you are putting a lot of spin into your views.
You are drawing some strange conclusions there.
Having dual nationality isn't as clear cut a process as you seem to think it is. Knowing three people who have it does not mean that it is easy to get and that millions of people 'must have it'.
It depends on the requirements of both countries and the agreements they have in place. You may find that only one of the two accepts it. I have known English people in Spain who have been required to submit their UK passports on taking Spanish citizenship. Others have been told not to renew them. Others haven't had anything said to them. Just holding a passport of your original country while having attained nationality in another may be against the law even though your original passport may still be legal in your country of origin and be perfectly legal there. I have family from Brazil on my wife's side who hold dual nationality and have no issues in Spain.
Before Brexit there were no real issues simply because having something like a Member of the Union certificate was often more than enough to wave around and get paperwork done and be 'legal'. It was often asked for when it wasn't actually needed. Of course, I had to hand that back when I applied for post Brexit permanent residence and it is not clear how dual nationality (UK/Spain) will work out going forward. The dust will have to settle first. There are still a lot of grey areas in the 'divorce settlement' to be clarified.
You should be able to understand that a referendum is not an election and the Brexit referendum was exceptional due to its nature.
There was nothing to stop non-resident UK nationals or 16 and 17 year olds from voting. It just had to be included in the legislation surrounding the particular event. That wasn't done because the whole thing wasn't very well thought out on ANY level and that's why the legal challenge basically failed.
But legalities aside, can you give me one single valid reason why the people who would be arguably the most directly affected (and in existential terms) should not have been allowed to vote?
Extrapolating the situation in your country to form an opinion on another isn't wise.
I do not have a guarantee that I will have access to regular medical care on my return to the UK. That is clearly stated by the UK authorities. If your country does allow this to happen it is a country specific problem. For my trips to the UK I used the EU medical card. Now, not an option. It is also true that anyone outside the home country is not generating a health (or any other) burden on the state either and, from my experience as a UK civil servant, I can assure you that there are far more people within the UK who literally pay nothing into the system and receive government benefits (of course health benefits too) anyway. Your rights aren't dependent on the taxes you pay and once again, these issues are country specific. By your logic, should non national permanent residents have a vote in the general elections where they reside? Spanish ex-pats are encouraged to vote from wherever they reside in the world. In countries with a large Spanish expat community like Argentina, politicians will often canvas voting in situ.
The cross pollination I referred to earlier (fruit mainly of free movement) also produces cases where one of the two people is not a national in their place of permanent residence. They may not work (voluntarily or involuntarily) but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't get the benefits.
Are you implying also that retired people who move abroad for a better quality of life should be denied healthcare as they no longer pay taxes in their countries of origin?
These are complex issues which require country by country evaluation and dealing with. Fortunately, the EU umbrella frameworks (through the treaties) provide excellent coverage to EU nationals wherever they live within the EU.
I don’t know why you’d enter into a debate about Brexit with a Canadian who has form for bad faith trolling, question spamming and entering into conversations without basic foundational knowledge about the things he espouses opinions on. Ignore him.
I don’t know why you’d enter into a debate about Brexit with a Canadian who has form for bad faith trolling, question spamming and entering into conversations without basic foundational knowledge about the things he espouses opinions on. Ignore him.
Ah! Canadian. I was thinking Swiss.
Basically a courtesy response. These issues largely fall back onto political leanings, ideologies, cost/benefit scenarios, personal opinion etc. Hopefully, with a large dose of common sense mixed in.
I'll admit to being pro-European and in favour of more 'union' as opposed to fragmentation based on selfish reasoning and 'identity'. I am a Brexiteers worst nightmare.
I still remember people complaining about the UK being a net contributor to the EU and the subsidies being farmed out to Spanish agriculture and telling people that my farher in law didn't have the 'luxury' of even a fridge in his family when he was young and had a large block of ice delivered regularly. That eating a chicken was reserved only for celebrations. And he was from a relatively well off family.
Decades later, well trained Spanish health professionals were landing in the UK to fill essential health care positions as native staff began leaving the profession in droves (especially nursing) due to burn out and stagnating salaries and awful working conditions. Those who had complained years before about Spain receiving subsidies were now possibly being attended by a Spanish health professional. Who knows, they might even have moved to Spain as it hit the lists of countries that were considered the best places to live.
I don't see how he was able to draw such quick and simple conclusions for a complex issue but once the two opinions are on the table there's not much more to add and would be OT anyway.
Comments
Having dual nationality isn't as clear cut a process as you seem to think it is. Knowing three people who have it does not mean that it is easy to get and that millions of people 'must have it'.
It depends on the requirements of both countries and the agreements they have in place. You may find that only one of the two accepts it. I have known English people in Spain who have been required to submit their UK passports on taking Spanish citizenship. Others have been told not to renew them. Others haven't had anything said to them. Just holding a passport of your original country while having attained nationality in another may be against the law even though your original passport may still be legal in your country of origin and be perfectly legal there. I have family from Brazil on my wife's side who hold dual nationality and have no issues in Spain.
Before Brexit there were no real issues simply because having something like a Member of the Union certificate was often more than enough to wave around and get paperwork done and be 'legal'. It was often asked for when it wasn't actually needed. Of course, I had to hand that back when I applied for post Brexit permanent residence and it is not clear how dual nationality (UK/Spain) will work out going forward. The dust will have to settle first. There are still a lot of grey areas in the 'divorce settlement' to be clarified.
You should be able to understand that a referendum is not an election and the Brexit referendum was exceptional due to its nature.
There was nothing to stop non-resident UK nationals or 16 and 17 year olds from voting. It just had to be included in the legislation surrounding the particular event. That wasn't done because the whole thing wasn't very well thought out on ANY level and that's why the legal challenge basically failed.
But legalities aside, can you give me one single valid reason why the people who would be arguably the most directly affected (and in existential terms) should not have been allowed to vote?
Extrapolating the situation in your country to form an opinion on another isn't wise.
I do not have a guarantee that I will have access to regular medical care on my return to the UK. That is clearly stated by the UK authorities. If your country does allow this to happen it is a country specific problem. For my trips to the UK I used the EU medical card. Now, not an option. It is also true that anyone outside the home country is not generating a health (or any other) burden on the state either and, from my experience as a UK civil servant, I can assure you that there are far more people within the UK who literally pay nothing into the system and receive government benefits (of course health benefits too) anyway. Your rights aren't dependent on the taxes you pay and once again, these issues are country specific. By your logic, should non national permanent residents have a vote in the general elections where they reside? Spanish ex-pats are encouraged to vote from wherever they reside in the world. In countries with a large Spanish expat community like Argentina, politicians will often canvas voting in situ.
The cross pollination I referred to earlier (fruit mainly of free movement) also produces cases where one of the two people is not a national in their place of permanent residence. They may not work (voluntarily or involuntarily) but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't get the benefits.
Are you implying also that retired people who move abroad for a better quality of life should be denied healthcare as they no longer pay taxes in their countries of origin?
These are complex issues which require country by country evaluation and dealing with. Fortunately, the EU umbrella frameworks (through the treaties) provide excellent coverage to EU nationals wherever they live within the EU.
Basically a courtesy response. These issues largely fall back onto political leanings, ideologies, cost/benefit scenarios, personal opinion etc. Hopefully, with a large dose of common sense mixed in.
I'll admit to being pro-European and in favour of more 'union' as opposed to fragmentation based on selfish reasoning and 'identity'. I am a Brexiteers worst nightmare.
I still remember people complaining about the UK being a net contributor to the EU and the subsidies being farmed out to Spanish agriculture and telling people that my farher in law didn't have the 'luxury' of even a fridge in his family when he was young and had a large block of ice delivered regularly. That eating a chicken was reserved only for celebrations. And he was from a relatively well off family.
Decades later, well trained Spanish health professionals were landing in the UK to fill essential health care positions as native staff began leaving the profession in droves (especially nursing) due to burn out and stagnating salaries and awful working conditions. Those who had complained years before about Spain receiving subsidies were now possibly being attended by a Spanish health professional. Who knows, they might even have moved to Spain as it hit the lists of countries that were considered the best places to live.
I don't see how he was able to draw such quick and simple conclusions for a complex issue but once the two opinions are on the table there's not much more to add and would be OT anyway.