Most progressives agree that this is a pivotal moment in the development of democracy in the Labour party and the country. We are contemplating not just tinkering with an outdated system but at last conceiving root and branch reform to meet 21st century aspirations of engagement and participation in a globalised world. But there is one significant plank missing from this debate – the five million British citizens who live abroad but lose their right to vote for the UK parliament after 15 years without obtaining similar rights elsewhere. For example, I cannot vote for any national parliament even though I have lived in Denmark for 26 years. My grandmother who was an active suffragette would be appalled and would see this as a mighty stain on our democracy. She would be right.
Disenfranchisement is just the tip of the iceberg. Linked to this are pensions, healthcare and other rights, which are often reduced or denied to overseas Britons even after a lifetime of contributions. Just as troubling is the almost complete failure to exploit the immense potential which the British diaspora represents. All this reflects a little englander mindset which somehow sees Britons who live abroad as out of sight and out of mind, or worse as deserters. This is quite astounding given Britain’s long history of global engagement.
This small mindedness unfortunately extends to the Labour party which seems to think that giving UK citizens abroad a permanent vote in the UK should be resisted as it would hand more votes to the Tories. This needs to be confronted head on. First, there is absolutely no evidence that the Tories would benefit most. Second, even if it were true, it completely ignores the democratic and ethical issues which arise when British citizens lose so many rights without gaining them elsewhere. On one level, we applaud globalisation and the UK’s role in this. We support the EU’s efforts to create a single market and strongly encourage global labour mobility as good for the UK economy. But this economic perspective is too narrow. It ignores the democratic, political and cultural dimensions of global movements of workers, seniors and others, and the benefits this delivers to the UK.
The erstwhile iron link between democracy and territory has been largely broken, but the UK seems oblivious to this fact. Any new constitutional and democratic settlement must recognise and exploit the British diaspora. Many countries already do so and have designed systems for their overseas national’s representation in governance structures. France designates 12 Senate seats to its citizens abroad, and Italy allocates seats in both its upper and lower houses. Most other democratic countries place no time limit on how long their citizens abroad can vote in national elections, whilst the few that do allow more than 15 years. Since 1996, the Council of Europe has urged member states to allow expatriates to vote abroad without limit. There are judgements in the European Court of Human Rights which clearly indicate that the right to vote without time restrictions is wholly consistent with relevant international instruments.
So, what should happen? The new constitutional settlement must leverage the economic and cultural weight of the British diaspora by harnessing their knowledge, expertise and contacts from around the world. For example by supporting networks of skilled global expatriates and organisations by location and sector, and as cultural ambassadors. It should allow British citizens abroad who do not otherwise vote for national parliaments to do so in Britain regardless of how long they have resided abroad. It should give Britons abroad a greater voice in the UK political system, for example through assigned seats in a reformed House of Lords or by establishing a high-level consultative body for overseas Britons. My suffragette grandmother would be proud, and the UK would benefit immeasurably.
Labour still perpetuates the disgraceful treatment of 50% of its pensioners living overseas. Half of all overseas pensioners living in the USA, Israel, Switzerland, Turkey, the countries of the former Yugoslavia, the Philippines, Jamaica, Bermuda, Barbados and the EU countries have their state pensions uprated just as if they were living in the UK. The other 50%, mostly living in Commonwealth countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia and other countries have their state pensions frozen at the rate at which it is first paid, or as it was at the date they emigrated.
In opposition, Labour said it would fix this (Ian McCartney and Tony Blair wrote letters saying so) but when in power they reneged on that.
It is often argued that government cannot afford it but the National Insurance Fund (NIF) which collects all NI contributions and pays out all state pensions has a surplus of over £50 billion in it. This is shown by accounts prepared by the National Audit Office and reported to Parliament each year by the Government Actuary Department. The Government “borrows” from this source of cash because the NIF money is hypothecated (ring fenced). If this money was used to uprate all overseas pensions, there would be no need for cuts elsewhere or even increased taxation because the Government could simply borrow the money from elsewhere, at a similar cost to its existing borrowing from the NIF.
The Labour Party leadership frequently says how committed it is to fairness and equality but in Government it fights tooth and nail to continue to discriminate against half of its overseas pensioners based on the country of residence of its pensioners.