Vote!

[Cousin Jack]

I would go with 'Too stupid' but the problem would be how to measure stupid.

[JackyJoll]

I would go with 'Too stupid' but the problem would be how to measure stupid.

It’s clever raised to the power -1.

[Noggin]

I don't agree with it really. I kinda get it if you're still a UK subject, but I think residency should play into it.

Oh, I dunno. Everyone should have a vote somewhere and I guess lots of expats can't vote in their new locations. So residency shouldn't be the key. If you're a British passport holder (NOT dual nationality) and either pay your taxes here/own property here (that attracts local taxes etc) and/or are in receipt of a state/occupational pension you have an interest in who runs the place so should have a vote.

What I don't get is, if you've lived in a different country long enough to not have a vote in the UK (before this new change) why didn't you apply for nationality in the new country? You've obviously chosen not to live in the uk, so why not commit to where you've chosen to live?

Personally I have no interest in voting in the uk because I don't think that what I want for a country I don't live in, should be taken into account.

There are now a lot of people registering to vote in a country they've not lived in for 15+ years. I just don't understand!

[Count Steer]

I don't agree with it really. I kinda get it if you're still a UK subject, but I think residency should play into it.

Oh, I dunno. Everyone should have a vote somewhere and I guess lots of expats can't vote in their new locations. So residency shouldn't be the key. If you're a British passport holder (NOT dual nationality) and either pay your taxes here/own property here (that attracts local taxes etc) and/or are in receipt of a state/occupational pension you have an interest in who runs the place so should have a vote.

What I don't get is, if you've lived in a different country long enough to not have a vote in the UK (before this new change) why didn't you apply for nationality in the new country? You've obviously chosen not to live in the uk, so why not commit to where you've chosen to live?

Personally I have no interest in voting in the uk because I don't think that what I want for a country I don't live in, should be taken into account.

There are now a lot of people registering to vote in a country they've not lived in for 15+ years. I just don't understand!

Because it's (to all intents and purposes) home If you're a UK passport, non-dual person and you might, just, have an interest in the state of the place if a) you ever do decide to return or b) your kids or family are still here perhaps.

[Noggin]

Oh, I dunno. Everyone should have a vote somewhere and I guess lots of expats can't vote in their new locations. So residency shouldn't be the key. If you're a British passport holder (NOT dual nationality) and either pay your taxes here/own property here (that attracts local taxes etc) and/or are in receipt of a state/occupational pension you have an interest in who runs the place so should have a vote.

What I don't get is, if you've lived in a different country long enough to not have a vote in the UK (before this new change) why didn't you apply for nationality in the new country? You've obviously chosen not to live in the uk, so why not commit to where you've chosen to live?

Personally I have no interest in voting in the uk because I don't think that what I want for a country I don't live in, should be taken into account.

There are now a lot of people registering to vote in a country they've not lived in for 15+ years. I just don't understand!

Because it's (to all intents and purposes) home If you're a UK passport, non-dual person and you might, just, have an interest in the state of the place if a) you ever do decide to return or b) your kids or family are still here perhaps.

I guess. I think to me it's just strange to commit everything to live elsewhere (mostly aimed at those without a home still in the UK) but not commit enough to actually have nationality where you choose to live. In many countries (France included) you can't vote if you are a resident, only if you have nationality. But you can apply for that after 5 years in most places I believe, so why wouldn't you.

Instead people complain that they can't vote and now will have a (quite possibly) large effect on the uk voting but don't actually live there.

I do get that I'm pretty weird, but it's like hedging your bets! But also I'm weird to most expats as I have no interest or expectation of returning to the uk to live - I'd rather move to another country if I left France!!

[Cousin Jack]

But I have a significant interest* in the USA. They don't let me vote though.

* because
a) whatever happens in the US comes to the UK a year or two later.
b) if the US economy tanks the UK follows suit in a matter of days.
c) every time the USA gets into a war they drag us in too

[Count Steer]

Because it's (to all intents and purposes) home If you're a UK passport, non-dual person and you might, just, have an interest in the state of the place if a) you ever do decide to return or b) your kids or family are still here perhaps.

I guess. I think to me it's just strange to commit everything to live elsewhere (mostly aimed at those without a home still in the UK) but not commit enough to actually have nationality where you choose to live. In many countries (France included) you can't vote if you are a resident, only if you have nationality. But you can apply for that after 5 years in most places I believe, so why wouldn't you.

Instead people complain that they can't vote and now will have a (quite possibly) large effect on the uk voting but don't actually live there.

I do get that I'm pretty weird, but it's like hedging your bets! But also I'm weird to most expats as I have no interest or expectation of returning to the uk to live - I'd rather move to another country if I left France!!

Complicated innit? People may be wise to hedge their bets. I'd say lots of expats start off by never expecting to return but, in many countries, becoming a national reduces the options because they don't allow dual nationality, you're either one of us or you ain't.

My v glam aunt and uncle (regular stars on Come Dancing back in the day*) left in their 30s for Australia then moved on to the USA. He died in Nevada where they'd lived for many years and she, in her 80s, came 'home'. My old school mate met a Greek girl, in London, moved out there and became a Greek national, but they're OK with dual nationality...and he still has lots of family ties here. So yup, his options are still open. (When his daughter looked like she'd settle here he thought about moving back...but she went to work in Berlin ).

So, if people can keep options open, why wouldn't they?

*To the point where, when they went off on a simple holibobs to Spain, the UK press (incorrectly) reported they'd gone to study the Paso Doble. Nah. They'd gone for a bit of sun and sangria.

[Noggin]

I do get keeping options open. Mine are limited due to finances and lack of 'real' family (no point changing countries to be closer to friends cos friends have their own families etc!). I am very lucky to be in France, even when I get nationality here I can keep the UK and Irish passports (at the moment, so I've been advised). But even without nationality, I have an EU passport, so that widens my options.

I no longer feel 'at home' in the UK, and I'm ok with that.

But to me, if you are hedging your bets, you are also voting with a different mindset and I'm not sure that's the best for the other people that are actually living and permanently residing in the 'home' country.


But like I said, I know I'm weird. I felt betrayed by a rather important vote and I am aware that a lot of older generation people voted in the way that 'hurt' me (mentally rather than physically) - so they weren't voting with the options for their grandchildren in mind. It seemed purely selfish and based on history more than the future . And I suppose it's with that in mind that I feel that expats that have been out of their 'home' country for as long as 15+ years (or whatever longterm figure comes to mind) should maybe consider which camp their feet are in! (Although had they been allowed to vote back then, there's a good chance things might have been different)


But I know many people will not agree with me (I've already been shot down on an expat page about this view - voting, not the B word!) - and I did kinda post it here just to see what people would say and what I could learn.

I won't and don't knock anyone for wanting that vote, I just don't really understand. I know you've explained, but because I am in a very different situation and have tried hard to integrate and will be applying for nationality here because I don't ever want to live back over there, I guess it's more difficult for me to understand

(Thank you for explaining and not being shouty )

[Saga Lout]

But like I said, I know I'm weird. I felt betrayed by a rather important vote and I am aware that a lot of older generation people voted in the way that 'hurt' me (mentally rather than physically) - so they weren't voting with the options for their grandchildren in mind. It seemed purely selfish and based on history more than the future .

Some of us voted to remain in the common market. (We didn't get a choice about actually joining.) Over the following 40 years we saw that WE had been betrayed. Was it always the intention to morph the common market into a political union? Probably. Would we have voted to remain in it if we'd been fully aware of that in the 70s? Probably/possibly not. When we got a chance to rectify the mistake we took it.

I think the EU is unsustainable and will eventually collapse. When that happens, the UK will be well out of it and my son and my grandsons might thank me for voting the way I did. If I'm wrong, they might curse me. In reality, they'll probably have as much interest in the way I voted in 2016 as I have in which party my father voted in 1945.

Oh, and by the way, I vote for what I think is best for the country. If people who don't even live in the country feel betrayed then so be it.

[Noggin]

But like I said, I know I'm weird. I felt betrayed by a rather important vote and I am aware that a lot of older generation people voted in the way that 'hurt' me (mentally rather than physically) - so they weren't voting with the options for their grandchildren in mind. It seemed purely selfish and based on history more than the future .

Some of us voted to remain in the common market. (We didn't get a choice about actually joining.) Over the following 40 years we saw that WE had been betrayed. Was it always the intention to morph the common market into a political union? Probably. Would we have voted to remain in it if we'd been fully aware of that in the 70s? Probably/possibly not. When we got a chance to rectify the mistake we took it.

I think the EU is unsustainable and will eventually collapse. When that happens, the UK will be well out of it and my son and my grandsons might thank me for voting the way I did. If I'm wrong, they might curse me. In reality, they'll probably have as much interest in the way I voted in 2016 as I have in which party my father voted in 1945.

Oh, and by the way, I vote for what I think is best for the country. If people who don't even live in the country feel betrayed then so be it.

I did live in the uk at the time of the vote. I had planned to live in both countries 50/50 because at the time, I could have. I made a decision on where to live based partly on the attitudes of the people around me in the area I lived in when that vote happened, not just because of the vote.

You are of the older generation, yes? So you voted to rectify something you saw as an error of your past. But a whole generation of youth had no chance to choose - and they've lost an awful lot in terms of education agreements, research agreements, simple travel, ability to work abroad etc. I know it is of no importance to you, but do you think that maybe there is a whole generation (or two) of people that will be wanting to correct the latest decision by people that no longer needed to study/work/travel in the eu?

Either way, I wasn't really up for a debate about that. I was interested in why people would still want to vote in a country they don't even live in, and why the would want to have a say in a country they chose to leave. But CS has sort of explained - I still don't get it, but like I said, I'm weird!!

[irie]

But like I said, I know I'm weird. I felt betrayed by a rather important vote and I am aware that a lot of older generation people voted in the way that 'hurt' me (mentally rather than physically) - so they weren't voting with the options for their grandchildren in mind. It seemed purely selfish and based on history more than the future .

Some of us voted to remain in the common market. (We didn't get a choice about actually joining.) Over the following 40 years we saw that WE had been betrayed. Was it always the intention to morph the common market into a political union? Probably. Would we have voted to remain in it if we'd been fully aware of that in the 70s? Probably/possibly not. When we got a chance to rectify the mistake we took it.

I think the EU is unsustainable and will eventually collapse. When that happens, the UK will be well out of it and my son and my grandsons might thank me for voting the way I did. If I'm wrong, they might curse me. In reality, they'll probably have as much interest in the way I voted in 2016 as I have in which party my father voted in 1945.

Oh, and by the way, I vote for what I think is best for the country. If people who don't even live in the country feel betrayed then so be it.

I did live in the uk at the time of the vote. I had planned to live in both countries 50/50 because at the time, I could have. I made a decision on where to live based partly on the attitudes of the people around me in the area I lived in when that vote happened, not just because of the vote.

You are of the older generation, yes? So you voted to rectify something you saw as an error of your past. But a whole generation of youth had no chance to choose - and they've lost an awful lot in terms of education agreements, research agreements, simple travel, ability to work abroad etc. I know it is of no importance to you, but do you think that maybe there is a whole generation (or two) of people that will be wanting to correct the latest decision by people that no longer needed to study/work/travel in the eu?

Either way, I wasn't really up for a debate about that. I was interested in why people would still want to vote in a country they don't even live in, and why the would want to have a say in a country they chose to leave. But CS has sort of explained - I still don't get it, but like I said, I'm weird!!

So you mean correcting a previous decision which was made to correct a previous decision which was made to correct a previous decision ...?

What one person believes to be a correct decision another may think to be an incorrect decision.

The current fashion is to feel that when a majority believes they're right the minority which disagrees become victims.

Currently you're the latter.

But you can change that.

[mangocrazy]

The current fashion is to feel that when a majority believes they're right the minority which disagrees become victims.

Currently you're the latter.

But you can change that.

Do you have any idea how patronising (not to mention flat out wrong) that statement is? You single-handedly turned a civilised debate into an attempt at victim shaming. You're the one who should be ashamed of themself - no-one else.

[Mussels]

The current fashion is to feel that when a majority believes they're right the minority which disagrees become victims.

Currently you're the latter.

But you can change that.

Do you have any idea how patronising (not to mention flat out wrong) that statement is? You single-handedly turned a civilised debate into an attempt at victim shaming. You're the one who should be ashamed of themself - no-one else.

Victim shaming, do you consider yourself a victim?

[mangocrazy]

Victim shaming, do you consider yourself a victim?

No. Are you hard of understanding?

[irie]

The current fashion is to feel that when a majority believes they're right the minority which disagrees become victims.

Currently you're the latter.

But you can change that.

Do you have any idea how patronising (not to mention flat out wrong) that statement is? You single-handedly turned a civilised debate into an attempt at victim shaming. You're the one who should be ashamed of themself - no-one else.

So I suppose you think that this is not patronising because you happen to believe that it is "flat out right"?

You are of the older generation, yes? So you voted to rectify something you saw as an error of your past. But a whole generation of youth had no chance to choose - and they've lost an awful lot in terms of education agreements, research agreements, simple travel, ability to work abroad etc. I know it is of no importance to you, but do you think that maybe there is a whole generation (or two) of people that will be wanting to correct the latest decision by people that no longer needed to study/work/travel in the eu?

[mangocrazy]

@irie You are clearly unable to tell what is patronising and what is not. You classified Noggin (and others) as some kind of victim. Noggin simply asked for confirmation that Saga Lout was 'of the older generation'; something that his user name clearly infers.

Your comment was patronising, Noggin's was not.

hth

[DefTrap]

I don't consider myself a victim (over Brexit) but at the time it kinda jarred to find I was in the minority.
As an "outsider" looking back at the UK via The News, over the last five years you increasingly seem to be living in some kind of third world country - it's all food banks, old people freezing to death and stabbings - so it's easy to see why thoughtless popularity-led knee-jerk politics (Brexit and Rwanda) is appealing and likes of feel-good comedy leaders like Boris and Trump gets votes.

[irie]

@irie You are clearly unable to tell what is patronising and what is not. You classified Noggin (and others) as some kind of victim. Noggin simply asked for confirmation that Saga Lout was 'of the older generation'; something that his user name clearly infers.

Your comment was patronising, Noggin's was not.

hth

So I suppose you think that this is not patronising because you happen to believe that it is "flat out right"?

This.

[mangocrazy]

@irie You are clearly unable to tell what is patronising and what is not. You classified Noggin (and others) as some kind of victim. Noggin simply asked for confirmation that Saga Lout was 'of the older generation'; something that his user name clearly infers.

Your comment was patronising, Noggin's was not.

hth

So I suppose you think that this is not patronising because you happen to believe that it is "flat out right"?

This.

You clearly have a Master's degree in deliberately missing the point. Whether I agree or not with what Noggin said, the tone was not patronising, it was respectful.

Your comment was patronising.

If i can be of any further help, please let me know.

[Count Steer]

I don't consider myself a victim (over Brexit) but at the time it kinda jarred to find I was in the minority.
As an "outsider" looking back at the UK via The News, over the last five years you increasingly seem to be living in some kind of third world country - it's all food banks, old people freezing to death and stabbings - so it's easy to see why thoughtless popularity-led knee-jerk politics (Brexit and Rwanda) is appealing and likes of feel-good comedy leaders like Boris and Trump gets votes.

Reminds me of something I read this morning:

'There can be no doubt that populist politicians are on to a winning formula: offer simplistic solutions to the world’s problems, blame everyone else when things go wrong and tell people what they want to hear'.

So you get stuff like the utter plum someone posted up recently. 'Lots of people don't pay the interest on their student loans, the government is owed £squillions, so we'll scrap the interest'. Who will that benefit? The people who don't pay it? Just the ones that get higher paid jobs. (Which is a bit like some of the people getting in a froth about death duties...when they won't actually pay a bean, they just don't understand the tax. But it will benefit the rich - of course). He claimed they'd scrap the 20mph limit in Wales too - wonder what the Welsh government body will have to say about devolved powers getting usurped.

But people lap it up because it sounds so certain and in times of uncertainty that's all they need to start nodding in agreement and say 'talks a lot of sense' that fella.

The same sort of people say they'll 'stop the boats' but also say they'll scrap the zero carbon stuff. The biggest impact/increase on migration is set to be created by global warming if areas become even more hospitable, but never mind, that's not what people want to hear and won't get votes.