Labour’s new Representation of the People Bill, introduced to Parliament last week, has drawn attention because it will give around 1.6 million 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. But hidden within the bill is an innocuous term – ‘automatic registration’ – that will also usher in a far more significant and controversial change.
Governments should be chosen by the people they will govern, not by those with minimal ties to our nation
Under the government’s plans, instead of having to register to vote, all eligible voters will be automatically added to the electoral roll, which will mean significant changes to constituency boundaries. It will also add my by calculation around 860,000 foreign nationals to the electoral roll – a change which might make a significant difference in 2029, when the election is certain to be dominated by debates over migration.
This is happening because the UK has a uniquely lax set of rules for voters. According to the Electoral Commission, any citizen of any Commonwealth country has the right to vote in our local and general elections so long as they are in the UK and have: ‘Any type of permission to enter or stay…whether indefinite, time limited or conditional’. Elsewhere on their website the Commission describe a ‘qualifying Commonwealth citizen’ as ‘someone [from the Commonwealth] who has leave to enter or remain in the UK, or who doesn’t require that leave’.
According to a House of Commons library briefing paper, ‘there is no minimum time period someone must be resident at an address to apply to register to vote’. So those here to work or study are allowed to vote.
I spoke with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local government who confirmed to me that the new law will require the Electoral Commission to automatically register Commonwealth citizens:
‘The Representation of the People Bill aims for a gradual shift towards a more automated registration system to simplify the process for voters, such as reducing the need for them to repeatedly fill out their details across various government services. That includes Commonwealth citizens, and it is right and fair that we make it easier for anyone eligible to register so we can boost engagement in our democracy.’
I am not aware of any other country which is so lax. The very idea is profoundly undemocratic. Governments should be chosen by the people they will govern, not by those with loyalties elsewhere, minimal ties to our nation, and who may well be leaving soon.
In Britain, we operate a system under which a citizen of any of the 57 Commonwealth nations (total population 2.7 billion), is allowed to vote if they are resident in the UK legally. The historic reason for this is, of course, the British Empire, under which all imperial subjects had such rights if they resided in Britain. These rights continued when the Empire became the Commonwealth. Perhaps it all made some sense before the era of mass transit, when a few South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians or Bangladeshis made their homes here. It makes no sense whatsoever now.
The Commonwealth isn’t even limited to former British colonies. As the organisation’s own website says, ‘any country can join the modern Commonwealth’. Indeed, one of the most recent nations to join was Gabon, a former French colony in West Africa.
It is utterly undemocratic that billions of foreigners have a potential right to vote in our elections once they are resident in this country. Those people simply can and will not have the same interests as actual Brits. On obvious matters of policy like migration they are likely to support parties which promise to further open the borders, even though this is against the express will of the British people. Similarly, they are likely to be concerned with the interests of their homelands, voting against our national interest if the two come into conflict.
Only British citizens should be able to vote in Britain. This old, broken law needs to change.
Comments