We are hoping so, but even more important is the US-EU negotiations. But there are some places, especially India, where I can't see them giving up their ability to make cheap versions of patent protected drugs. My company was trying to get one of our 'new' drugs onto the market there a couple of years ago, but we didn't bother once we found out that there were already 14 generic versions available. I don't really blame them, even the cheap versions are expensive for the average Indian. NZ and Australia even tougher than Europe at the moment, we closed our office in NZ years ago, run it from Sydney now.
Anyway, if you take the few nutters/serial killers out of the equation, research* shows that the burglars, robbers, drug dealers, fraudsters etc who make up the vast majority of the prison population, have an entrepreneurial mindset and desire to avoid social and financial obligations that makes them overwhelmingly Tory. So I'm quite happy for them not to have the vote. * Probably, I've not actually looked.
I also wonder which way the ex pat population would vote. There are around 6 million holders of British passports living overseas - after 15 years living outside of the UK. they lose their British voting rights. If they are also living in a country where naturalization is a necessary condition to voting then they can end up disenfranchized in both countries.
Sums our country up. Maybe we should give one million to all murderers who are released from prison. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...14lzXUgF2BKORoCWv6DjmA&bvm=bv.104819420,d.bGQ
Sorry 90's only jjust seen your post. .. Yep we have no free health care treatment at point of contact. ...basically if you don't have a medical card you have to hand over your cash. ....If i go to the GP I hand over 50 quid as I don't have a medical card....i can claim about a fiver back from my insurance which isn't worth while. ...so i claim the amount against my tax bill wwhen filling out my tax return. The health insurance is a benefit as it covers most conditions and both public and private hospitals. ....for example when i had my hip done 6 years ago I had the option of a private hospital at my time of choosing or waiting a couple of years for the public hospital....Itwas a no brainier but the bill was €16k paid by my insurance. ... Sadly it becomes a necessity to have the insurance as you get older until you reach 70 when a medical card allowing free health care is issued. ..
I'm genuinely shocked. I thought ( rather naively ) that everyone had access to free healthcare. Surely it's a basic human right/need? I realise that this isn't the case in the states but I thought Europe had a cross border free healthcare agreement. I must admit that I've not given it much thought. Perhaps I should.
Here in Canada, providing you have a resident's provincial Medicare card, doctor appointments and hospital ER visits are free. Most other associated health care costs are covered @ 80% under my Blue Cross medical & dental plan (jointly paid with employer - I pay $875/year for family coverage). Any prescription is $5 max (for 3 mths supply). Vision care is not so good - only $180 every 2 years plus one eye exam in that period. Massage therapy, chiropractor and physiotherapy are also covered to max $500.
E Ex pats should not be allowed to vote They generally don't have to live with the consequences How many do vote from overseas
Kiwi, from the 6 million Britons living outside of the country just over a third are in other EU. countries - only just below the numbers of 'Europeans' living in the UK. Are you seriously suggesting that a decision such as withdrawal from the EU. has no consequences for them ? Yet, as far as I know, they are excluded from a referendum on the subject. Also excluded are 'Europeans' living in the UK - ie. they are ok. to pay into the British tax system but not to participate in a decision which is central to their futures.
How many of the 6 million are no longer eligible to vote anyway In 2 years I lose the right to vote in England If you want to live in nz Germany or timbuctu then do that But don't expect to take part in elections which won't affect your day to day life Maybe I could vote in Germany's elections I don't live there either
As for the people living in countries where you can't vote because you are not a national Become a national
We don't have free healthcare 9s. We pay for it through direct taxation. In my view these means that we have less 'ownership' of what we get, and certainly less choice than most western European countries, plus employers have virtually no responsibility for the health of employees - in most places companies run their own insurance schemes with a state run/sponsored system in parallel. A couple of years ago I helped my Indian colleagues prepare for a negotiation with the Indian Railways health insurance plan - it has 60 million members. Most developed countries (including the US, contrary to popular opinion) have safety nets and the especially vulnerable - children, the elderly, those with chronic illnesses and those with low/no incomes - do not have to contribute to the same extent, or any extent. As for a 'basic human rights' the brutalist in me argues that healthcare is just a commodity like everything else, and 'rights' are just fleeting social conventions, which change over time as societies change. Human Rights are statements of intent rather than guarantees - you have the right not to be murdered, but it doesn't mean you won't be murdered. But provision of decent quality care for everyone is obviously a sign of civilization.
Only one problem there, becoming a 'national' takes time ie. if you lose your voting rights after 2 years and can only become a 'national' in your new country after so many years of residence (this is different in each EU country but is normally about 8 years) then it follows that a person is disenfranchised in the meantime. Only British citizens are affected by this because all other EU states allow their citizens to vote from abroad (regardless of length of absence).
Having been an expat (twice) my level of sympathy with 'disenfranchised' expats is, I'm afraid, precisely zero. It's no big deal, hasn't influenced your choice of where to live. In my view it makes much more sense for you to be able to vote where you actually live rather than in your notional 'home' country. Anyway, voting is a privilege that you have reluctantly or inadvertently, decided to forgo.
I think if you're looking for a definition of those rights then ask what makes a 'citizen' different from a 'subject'. In contrast to many other countries the UK. does not have a written constitution setting out what rights its citizens have. Citizens rights can be seen differently in different countries and at different points in time - in the constitution of the USSR both the possession of a job, and having a place to live were guaranteed civil rights, in the bill of rights of the USA the right to the security of private property is secured. Many Americans think that having a weapon at home is a human right. In France 'human rights' were used to justify a press freedom (ie. the extent of Charlie Hebdo's caricatures) which would be seen as inflammatory in some other countries. What do they all have in common ? Would it not be better for the UK. to establish its own bill of rights, so that everyone has some idea of the political and social responsibilities which belong to citizenry ?
Sorry - voting is not a privilege it is a right, and a part of being a citizen, which people demonstrated for, and sometimes died for, in the past. It is a question of whether you want voting rights to be 'inclusive' or 'exclusive'. The more inclusive the electorate is the more legitimacy the resulting government has.
Yup, but your choice of where you want to live means you have voluntarily forfeited your rights. Rights are social conventions dependent on place and time. I would have no objection to the UK having a bill of rights and indeed the Tories are planning one. But as soon as it becomes a sacred cow like the right to bear arms in the U.S. it defeats it's original intention, the 'right' is out of sync with its meaning when originally set forward. I don't know what the USSR has in common with the USA or France or the UK in terms of liberty of the individual citizen, enlighten me.
The reference to the USSR was as an example of how the idea of what constitutes 'civil rights' can be seen differently in different systems. The USSR saw themes such as homelessness or unemployment as human rights issues, which the USA did/does not. The so called 'freedoms' or liberties of the West were seen as being in direct proportion to wealth ie. the more wealth you have the more freedom etc. So 'wealth' is the force which sets some people free but locks others outside - how much 'freedom' do the cardboard box people of New York have ? That was the way the USSR would have seen the supposed 'freedoms' of the west, and their viewpoint was as valid as yours or mine. Unfortunately the USSR did not live by its own constitution (any more than America does).
