The increase in the cost of citizenship really rankles. I received my British citizenship around 2002-3 and it cost around £70, similar to the cost of a civil wedding at the time. The cost shot up and it seemed like a way to make money out of people who couldn’t vote against it. Piddling sums of money to the government but huge to families and couples at what should be a happy time.
Yes, I very much agree. Arguably the simplest and most straightforward reform the government could make to encourage greater political participation by settled immigrants would be to lower these prohibitive costs, which are a major barrier to the uptake of citizenship.
I was shocked recently to find out how much it costs to apply for citizenship. When someone has been here for most of her life, over 25 years, has a son going to school here, has been paying taxes here and contributing in other ways, yet they still want £1630 out of her.
Well, that's the norm in most countries. But, firstly, Britain already doesn't follow that norm with regards many of its largest migrant communities - citizens of Commonwealth countries and Ireland already have voting rights. Secondly, there is very strong British public support for likewise extending political rights to other settled migrants - I don't know if that's true in France as well, but this isn't an article about what the French government should do. Thirdly, if you think voting rights should be more closely tied to citizenship, that's fine! I address that in the article too - Britain has some of the most restrictive and expensive citizenship rules in the world (much more so than France) - opening the political system to settled migrant by liberalising that system would be fine by me also.
That is addressed in the article. Firstly, we have not said this since at least 1948 (British Nationality Act). Restricting the franchise to citizens only would involve disenfranchising millions of long term residents despite there being no public demand to do so. Secondly, as I explain in the article, public opinion runs *very strongly* in the *opposite* direction to this - 95% of voters want to *extend* the franchise to *include* immigrants (though they disagree about how quickly to do this. So the position you propose is a 5% minority stance.
It’s also a further Windrush anomaly that there are people who were deported for not being ‘British’, but presumably had the right to vote. Are citizens of countries that aren’t former British colonies, but which subsequently joined the Commonwealth (eg Mozambique) able to vote in Britain if legally settled here?
The increase in the cost of citizenship really rankles. I received my British citizenship around 2002-3 and it cost around £70, similar to the cost of a civil wedding at the time. The cost shot up and it seemed like a way to make money out of people who couldn’t vote against it. Piddling sums of money to the government but huge to families and couples at what should be a happy time.
Yes, I very much agree. Arguably the simplest and most straightforward reform the government could make to encourage greater political participation by settled immigrants would be to lower these prohibitive costs, which are a major barrier to the uptake of citizenship.
I was shocked recently to find out how much it costs to apply for citizenship. When someone has been here for most of her life, over 25 years, has a son going to school here, has been paying taxes here and contributing in other ways, yet they still want £1630 out of her.
As a Brish citizen resident in France I have NO voting rights
Well, that's the norm in most countries. But, firstly, Britain already doesn't follow that norm with regards many of its largest migrant communities - citizens of Commonwealth countries and Ireland already have voting rights. Secondly, there is very strong British public support for likewise extending political rights to other settled migrants - I don't know if that's true in France as well, but this isn't an article about what the French government should do. Thirdly, if you think voting rights should be more closely tied to citizenship, that's fine! I address that in the article too - Britain has some of the most restrictive and expensive citizenship rules in the world (much more so than France) - opening the political system to settled migrant by liberalising that system would be fine by me also.
Why not say that only citizens can vote? And encourage all residents to become citizens?
That is addressed in the article. Firstly, we have not said this since at least 1948 (British Nationality Act). Restricting the franchise to citizens only would involve disenfranchising millions of long term residents despite there being no public demand to do so. Secondly, as I explain in the article, public opinion runs *very strongly* in the *opposite* direction to this - 95% of voters want to *extend* the franchise to *include* immigrants (though they disagree about how quickly to do this. So the position you propose is a 5% minority stance.
It’s also a further Windrush anomaly that there are people who were deported for not being ‘British’, but presumably had the right to vote. Are citizens of countries that aren’t former British colonies, but which subsequently joined the Commonwealth (eg Mozambique) able to vote in Britain if legally settled here?
Good question! According to this Electoral Commission website, citizens Mozambique and all the other countries which joined the Commonwealth without a British Empire connection (Rwanda, Gabon and Togo) have voting rights https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/who-can-vote/which-elections-you-can-vote