The Law Lords, in their wisdom have rejected the argument presented by Schindler and the lawyers for the repeal of the 15- year rule for the referendum on In or Out of the EU.
"For immediate release
28 April 2016
Lawyers vow to fight on after High Court rejects Brexit challenge
Lawyers acting for two British citizens fighting a legal battle for the right to vote in the EU Referendum have confirmed they will seek leave to appeal direct to the Supreme Court against the judgment by two High Court judges rejecting their challenge.
The High Court hearing into the rights of up to 2 million Britons in Europe to vote in the EU referendum took place on Wednesday 20th April 2016. The case was taken by 94-year-old Harry Shindler, a Second World War veteran who lives in Italy, and lawyer and Belgian resident Jacquelyn MacLennan.
Lawyers for the two argued that under the EU Referendum Act 2015 they are being unlawfully denied the right to vote on the UK’s continued membership of the EU as the legislation excludes British people who have lived elsewhere in the European Union for more than 15 years, from voting in June.
They told the Court that if the vote in June is to leave the EU then all British citizens will lose their status as EU citizens. This means that those British citizens living outside the UK but in the EU will become “resident aliens” living and working abroad under sufferance rather than by right and no longer able to claim the protections of EU law .
The Court also heard arguments that the ’15 year rule’ acted as a penalty against British citizens for having exercised their free movement rights. The rule prevented them from participating in a democratic process, the result of which might bring to an end the very EU law rights on which they rely and base their working and private lives every day.
The nearest I can get is that the Law Lords sort of agree that the disenfranchised have a case to be considered - but they rejected it! Bob.
However Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mr. Justice Blake stated in today’s ruling that they accepted the Government’s claims that there were: “…significant practical difficulties about adopting especially for this referendum a new electoral register which includes non-resident British citizens whose last residence the United Kingdom was more than 15 years ago.” [Para 57]
They continued: “In our view, Parliament could legitimately take the view that electors who satisfy the test of closeness of connection set by the 15 year rule form an appropriate group to vote on the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.” [Para 58]
Following the judgment Richard Stein, the lawyer from Leigh Day representing the claimants, said: “We are obviously disappointed that the High Court has denied us the opportunity to challenge the decision by the Government to exclude British citizens from the EU referendum.
“We now intend to take the legal battle to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the country, so that all British citizens living elsewhere in the EU can be part of the democratic process to vote in this referendum which will have a very real impact on their lives.
“We believe that there is precedent for fast track legislation being put through Parliament in a matter of days in response to court judgment, so there would be no need for the referendum to be delayed if the Supreme Court rules in our favour.
“Since this is a vote in a referendum rather than in an election there is no need to link the votes of Britons in Europe to any particular constituency in the UK. Possession of a British passport should be enough.”
In response to the judgment, Jacquelyn MacLennan said: “The Government made a manifesto commitment to enfranchise all British citizens, no matter how long they have been abroad saying that they thought that “choosing 15 years, as opposed to 14 or 16 years, is inherently like sticking a dart in a dartboard” and that “if British citizens maintain British citizenship that brings with it rights, obligations and a connection with this country, and that that should endure.”. We just want the Government to keep its promises.”
Does anyone have any idea what this paragraph means (above) "They continued: “In our view, Parliament could legitimately take the view that electors who satisfy the test of closeness of connection set by the 15 year rule form an appropriate group to vote on the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.” [Para 58]"
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!