Why Commonwealth Citizens Get to Vote in the UK
- Alistair McConnachie
- 5 days ago
- 20 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
"Bombay" by Charles Pears. The days of believing that all the "Subjects of the King" from India, and the rest of the Empire, should automatically have the right to vote in the UK, are over.
In this new piece of major research from A Force For Good, we discover the source of the law which enables millions of "Commonwealth Citizens" (who are not British citizens) to vote at every election in the UK. We discover it is because of an inter-play between nationality law and electoral law dating back to 1914; some of it based upon a sentimentality about the past.
It is a process which has just been allowed to happen; probably without any conscious intention or direction, and with no regard to the numbers of immigrants and their effect upon our democracy and political system.
The author, Alistair McConnachie, has a degree in Scots Law.
In 2025, we commemorated the 80th anniversary of "Victory in Europe Day". We were taught that the war was between "dictatorship" and "democracy". Similarly, the Cold War was between "dictatorship" and "democracy". If we are to respect those who died for our British democracy, then it behoves us to put some thought into what we understand as our "democracy".
That includes the questions: "Who gets to vote?" and "Why do they get to vote?"
WHO GETS TO VOTE?
Obviously, British citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, are able to vote at every election in the UK. In addition, the few people resident in the UK from the 14 British Overseas Territories, are also able to vote. They are part of the British jurisdiction – that is, under our legal control and protection – and have the King as Head of State. (1)
However, it might surprise some people to know that citizens of the following countries – who are legally resident in the United Kingdom – are able to vote at every election in the United Kingdom, whether local, devolved or British General Election.
THE COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
Below, we list the 55 Commonwealth countries, not including the UK (as of 25 May 2025). Only 14 of them offer a form of reciprocal voting rights. (2)
The 14 countries in bold are the "Crown Commonwealth" nations where the King is Head of State.
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Cameroon
Canada
Cyprus (also an EU country)
Dominica
Fiji
Gabon
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
Guyana
India
Jamaica
Kenya
Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland)
Kiribati
Lesotho
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta (also an EU country)
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Republic of Tanzania
Vanuatu
Zambia
ZIMBABWE
Additionally, this country has not been a member of the Commonwealth since 2023, but its citizens in the UK are still regarded as "Commonwealth citizens" under Schedule 3 of the British Nationality Act 1981, meaning they are still able to vote at all British elections.
And…
HONG KONG (certain people)
Hong Kong citizens, legally resident in the UK, will be considered "Commonwealth citizens", and eligible to vote at all British elections, if they hold one of the following passports:
- British National (Overseas) passport
- British Overseas Territories Citizen passport
- British Overseas Citizen passport
And...
REPUBLIC of IRELAND whose nationals can vote in ALL Elections, including the British General Election. Since 1985 we have had a reciprocal voting arrangement with the Republic.
<end of List)
Let's put Hong Kong and the Republic of Ireland aside, and concentrate on the question of the Commonwealth countries (inc Zimbabwe). Let's also put aside the fact that in Scotland and Wales any legal resident from anywhere in the world can vote at local and devolved elections; and in England and Northern Ireland, some EU citizens are able to vote where there are reciprocal agreements in place. (3)
Table from Neil Johnston, Who can vote in UK elections? House of Commons Library, 11 July 2024 at p8. Opens as a PDF here.
Why do Commonwealth Citizens get to vote in the UK? What is the justification?
"NATIONALITY ACTS" and "ELECTORAL ACTS"
As we examine the various Parliamentary Acts below, it's important to distinguish between the "Nationality Acts" (which are concerned about who belongs to the nation in the first place) and the "Electoral Acts" (which are concerned about who can vote and how). The latter are identified by the title "Representation of the People Act [Year]".
They address different topics but are naturally related.
"BRITISH SUBJECT" and "BRITISH CITIZEN"
These days, we speak about someone having "British citizenship". However, the legal term "British citizen" did not arise in UK nationality law until the British Nationality Act of 1981.
As we will discover, Acts of Parliament in the past tended to speak about someone being a "British subject". This means, someone who "owes allegiance to the monarch". In the past, when the monarch was the Head of the British Empire, that was a lot of people!
Today, the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Secs 1 and 2) specifies that resident "Commonwealth citizens" are entitled to vote at Parliamentary and Local elections.
However, the legal basis for this is quite obscure. It is also tenuous in the sense that the thread linking the Acts to each other is thin!
We have been able to date the ability of (those we now consider) "Commonwealth citizens" to vote in the UK, to a 1918 electoral Act, which based a definition of "British subject" upon a 1914 nationality Act.
We conclude that there was never any deliberate intention to give the vote to the Commonwealth citizens who enjoy it today. It appears to have been a process that was simply "allowed to happen" rather than specifically directed.
The Acts which we examine are presented in chronological order, below. All emphases are ours. The links go to the official "Legislation" site of the British government, and to the version of the Acts as originally enacted.
This was given Royal Assent on 7 August 1914, 3 days after the declaration of war on Germany. It came into force on 1 January 1915.
In 1914, only men aged 21 and over who met various business and property qualifications could vote. This was all men of any race, colour or creed who met the economic qualifications, provided they were considered to be British subjects in the sense of owing allegiance to the monarch. Women could not vote, and were not able to do so until 1918 partially, and in 1928 fully. And it wasn't until the Representation of the People Act 1948 that business premises qualifications, and University Graduate votes were abolished.
This 1914 Act was a nationality Act, not an electoral Act. The Act did not refer to voting, but its definition of "British subject" has influenced subsequent Acts relating to the franchise.
It sought to define a "natural-born British subject". (By the way, it is a convention in British legislation that the word "his" refers to both male and female.)
It stated:
Part 1
Natural-born British Subjects
1. Definition of natural-born British subject
(1) The following persons shall be deemed to be natural-born British subjects, namely:-
(a) Any person born within His Majesty's dominions and allegiance; and
(b) Any person born out of His Majesty's dominions whose father was, at the time of that person's birth, a British subject, and who fulfils any of the following conditions, that is to say, if either-
(i) his father was born within His Majesty's allegiance; or
(ii) his father was a person to whom a certificate of naturalization had been granted; or
(iii) his father had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory; or
(iv) his father was at the time of that person's birth in the service of the Crown; or
(v) his birth was registered at a British consulate within one year or in special circumstances, with the consent of the Secretary of State, two years after its occurrence, or, in the case of a person born on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen, who would have been a British subject if born before that date, within twelve months after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-two; and
(c) Any person born on board a British ship whether in foreign territorial waters or not:
Let's just break this down.
Regarding 1(1)a, above, we find that Schedule 1 of the Act clarifies the "dominions" as the 5 nations: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland.
However, we also note that 1(1)b, above, adds that anyone who was "born out of" these dominions can still be a natural-born British subject if his father was a "British subject" – that is, someone owing allegiance to His Majesty.
As per 1(1)(b)(i) his father would be a "British subject" if his father was "born within His Majesty's allegiance". That is to say, if his father was born in a country which had the King as the Head of State. In effect, this would be any nation of the British Empire!
From that, we are left to infer that the status of "British subject" refers to everyone born within the Dominions or who had a father born within the rest of the British Empire. (4)
This would apply to millions upon millions of Africans, Indians and everyone else!
However, it is also relevant to realise that the idea of such people entering the UK in their millions – let alone voting – from the rest of the British Empire, simply wasn't considered a prospect in 1914.
Moving on…four years later…
This extended the franchise to all men aged over 21, and to women aged over 30 who occupied land or premises with a rateable value above £5, or whose husbands did.
Impliedly, these qualifications would apply only to British subjects, consistent with the definition in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, as above.
The only mention of "British subject" is in the clause:
Part 1, 9(3) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a parliamentary or local government elector if he is not a British subject,
Since there was no specific clause deliberately excluding "British subjects" who were present from other countries, then this negatively phrased sentence appears to have been interpreted to mean that any man, or qualifying woman as above, who was a British subject from anywhere in the world – as defined under the 1914 Act – could vote if they were resident in the UK.
Again, bear in mind that this was before mass immigration. In 1918, Britain was almost entirely native British. There would be very few British subjects present from other lands.
The British subjects who would be present from other lands would be mainly from the Dominions, and would likely be people who had, or whose ancestors had, moved to the Dominions relatively recently; many of whom regarded themselves as native British. There would also be a very small number of British subjects from the rest of the Empire who were legally resident and settled in the UK, and if they had the necessary qualifications, then they would also be able to vote.
THE TAKEAWAY from these 2 ACTS
We conclude that it is the very wide definition of "British subject" which was created in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 combined with the reference to people not being able to vote unless they were "British subjects" in the Representation of the People Act 1918 which, together, forms the basis of the on-going convention – the long-established practice – that people from the Empire, and now the Commonwealth, have always been able to vote at every election.
This lowered the voting age for women from 30 to 21, matching the same age requirement for men. It removed property qualifications for women.
It is considered to have achieved universal suffrage for British adults aged 21 and over.
However, it didn't mention anything about "British subjects". Again, at this time, the numbers of British subjects from the rest of the world in the UK would be very few. It would simply not be a political issue.
The Representation of the People Act 1948 received Royal Assent on 30 July 1948, just 6 weeks after the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury on 21 June.
It was intended to modernise the franchise by removing the business premises qualifications, and abolishing the specific votes for University Graduates.
It gave the vote to "British subjects of full age" (Part 1. 1(2)).
However, it didn't further define the term. By now it seems to have been accepted that it encompassed all people from the Empire and Commonwealth, which meant it included the people who had just arrived at Tilbury.
The British Nationality Act 1948 came into force on 1 January 1949.
It created the new status of "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" for people born or naturalised in either the UK or one of its colonies. Please note, "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" was a different legal status from "British citizen" – a status which was only introduced in 1981.
Right at the start it states:
PART I.
BRITISH NATIONALITY.
1.-(i) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed, or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression "British subject" and the expression "Commonwealth citizen" shall have the same meaning.
(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon. [That is, the Dominions at that time]
Sec 32 clarifies that the word 'Colony' does not include any countries mentioned in subsection 3, above.
Therefore, the 1948 Act ensured the status of "British subject" and/or "Commonwealth citizen" covered all the Colonies of the British Empire, as well as the Dominions.
CONFUSION OF "SUBJECT" WITH "CITIZEN"
So we now enter the stage where a "British subject" is being used in the same sense as a "Commonwealth citizen" – even though this is clearly a serious confusion of terms.
For example, while it is possible to be both a citizen and a subject of the monarch if you live in a monarchy, it's not possible to be a subject of the monarch if you are a citizen of a republic!
Since 1948, many of those countries whose people were subjects of the King, have now become independent. Many of them became republics. For example, India became independent in 1947 and dropped the monarchy in 1950. Today, any Indian citizens resident in the UK (who have not been granted British citizenship) cannot be described as British subjects, or even Indian subjects of the King, although they can be described as "Commonwealth citizens".
Today, of the 56 countries of the Commonwealth, including Britain, 15 of them are still realms of the King. Only with those 15 can you properly say that their people are "British subjects", either in their own homelands, or when they stay in the UK.
WHAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1948?
Immigration writer Bill Parson explains the thinking (our emphases):
In general terms, before 1st January 1949 a person born in the United Kingdom or a British colony became a British subject. There was no distinction at that time between birth in the United Kingdom or in a colony. On 1st January 1949, the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force. The Act provided for there to be two forms of British subject status. Those British subjects that had a connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining colony acquired the status "British subject; citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" (CUKC). Those with a connection with a former colony became British subjects with the citizenship of the newly independent country.
The intention of the 1948 Act was to reflect the reality of many countries within the old empire declaring their own citizenship laws in a way that would acknowledge their right to do so which still preserving the idea of a common identity. The Act intended to allow this – although it was already happening or about to happen – and provide everyone with the umbrella status 'British subject'.
This may have seemed tidy and logical at the time but was a deeply flawed arrangement. The status of British citizen, it may surprise many, did not exist and would not exist until 1981. Between 1948 and 1981, anyone born in the UK itself had the status of British subject; citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. (5)
He quotes a former Labour MP Alex Lyon saying:
In 1948, when other countries decided that they would take their own citizenship, we should have done the same. We should have said that we were citizens of the United Kingdom. We should not have said that we were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What we did was to say that everyone else could take their own citizenship – Canada, India, Jamaica and the rest – and that we would take all the others. In other words, anyone who could not become a citizen of one of those countries would become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…That may have been a laudable objective of the Labour Government of 1948 – backed, I may say, by the Conservative Opposition – but it was disastrous in its effect, because it meant that when we came up against the emotional problems of immigration there was no logical basis on which we could make a non-racialist test about who should be allowed in and who should not. What happened was that successive Governments applied distinctions to the same category of citizenship. (6)
What Lyon is saying here is that since most of the immigrants, largely from the Commonwealth, had the same status in law as an indigenous native British person, then it was difficult to argue against immigration on the straight-forward legal basis that these people were citizens of other countries. We had to consider them as legally equivalent to the indigenous native British, and part of our wider British family. This may have had a sentimental appeal but it was not a practical position, especially as the numbers started to increase.
In the absence of the legal and emotionally-neutral "they're foreign citizens" argument, the only way of arguing against such immigration was to start drawing attention to their race or nationality and suggesting that they weren't going to assimilate – an argument, which in the aftermath of WW2 became increasingly awkward to articulate.
In confusing the concept of British citizenship in this way, Britain, in the words of Parsons, "forgot to declare her own independence".
He states:
While all the other Commonwealth countries were busily defining what it meant to be a citizen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc, Britain did not seize the opportunity to do the same thing. Britannia was apparently so keen to accommodate the independence of its own Dominions and Colonies and hold the Commonwealth together that she forgot to define her own citizenship and give herself some measure of independence to decide who could or could not come to the UK as of right. Britain forgot to declare her own independence. It was an opportunity lost and later changes would be made much more difficult by the time that had been wasted and the changing circumstances caused by greater freedom to travel." (7)
Regarding the inability to see what was coming, the eminent judge, Lord Hailsham, is quoted as saying:
Neither [Clement Attlee] nor I had the smallest conception in 1948 of what we now call the immigration problem. How could we? We thought that there would be free trade in citizens, that people would come and go, and that there would not be much of an overall balance in one direction or the other…It was not until much later that we came to realise that, if we have a standard of life in this country which is much greater than that commonly experienced in the rest of the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, we need to have only an unrestricted right of entry and it will act as a magnet to which people will come. (8)
The Representation of the People Act 1949 received Royal Assent on 24 November 1949. It described those eligible as "of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote and either British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland:" (Part 1. 1(1))
There is no mention of "Commonwealth citizens", and again, there appeared to be no need to define the term "British subjects".
This Act largely replaced the 1948 term "British subject; citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" with either "British citizen", or the new classes of British Dependent Territory Citizen, and British Overseas Citizen.
It also defined a "Commonwealth citizen" as a citizen of a country listed in Schedule 3, which includes all the Commonwealth nations today.
The Representation of the People Act 1983 (Secs 1 and 2) specified that resident "Commonwealth citizens" are entitled to vote at Parliamentary and Local elections.
By so doing, it was only making clear in black and white the convention which had been on-going since 1918, and which had never been challenged in any significant sense.
SO WE CAN NOW ANSWER OUR QUESTION
"Why do Commonwealth Citizens get to Vote in the UK?"
We started in 1914, when the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act defined a "British subject" as being of the Dominions, and everyone with a father born elsewhere "within his Majesty's allegiance" – in effect, that amounted to anywhere else in the British Empire.
The 1918 Representation of the People Act specifically said that people who were not "British subjects" could not vote, thereby implying although not stating that all "British subjects" – as defined in the 1914 Nationality Act – could vote. However – and this is the nub of the matter – nowhere in this 1918 Act is there a specific intention to give the vote to all British subjects who arrive into the UK from the Empire.
That may have been an oversight, but that was the consequence.
This was also, of course, before the full franchise of all Britons aged 21 and over, which didn't occur until 1928. Therefore, it is understandable that the framers of the legislation where not considering the hundreds of millions of foreigners who could potentially take advantage of the situation. After all, back then they weren't even considering British women under 30 being allowed to vote!
As the franchise expanded, the matter of voters coming in from abroad did not register as an issue because there were so few of them.
In 1948, the term "British subject" became legally interchangeable with the term "Commonwealth citizen" as a result of the British Nationality Act of that year, even though this was an inaccurate use of the English language.
This suggested, in terms of the franchise, that all such "Commonwealth citizens" could continue to be considered to have the right to vote, in the manner that all "British subjects" before them had that right.
This started to become politically relevant as immigration began in earnest…as it happens, that year!
Even so, up until the late 70s and early 80s, immigration was not particularly noticeable, except in some of the bigger towns and cities.
By 1981, the law was only speaking about "British citizens" and "Commonwealth citizens" as a result of the British Nationality Act of that year.
And in 1983 the right of "Commonwealth citizens" (all of them) to vote, was written down specifically in the Representation of the People Act 1983.
We conclude that it was never originally intended to give the vote to everyone from the Empire who happened to live here – and now from the Commonwealth – but the development of nationality law, and imprecisely-worded electoral law, along with the on-going process of mass immigration, which few politicians wanted to question or oppose, has simply had this consequence.
BUT THIS IS NOW A POLITICAL AND DEMOCRATIC ISSUE
By 1997, mass immigration really started to take off. Post-2020 the gross numbers-in have been around a million a year! (9)
Given that 100s of thousands of these people are from the Commonwealth, and can vote as soon as they arrive here, then this clearly has electoral consequences which can no longer be ignored. Such numbers could vote to change the country in their own interests, as well as vote to block immigration-restriction parties.
For example, figures released by the Office for National Statistics (22-5-25) detailed 156K Indian, 76K Pakistani, 52K Nigerian, 21K Zimbabwean, 17K Bangladeshi, and 16K Ghanaian long-term immigrants entering the UK in 2024. That's 338K people who immediately have the right to vote in all our elections, before we add in the other Commonwealth countries! See Table 3a below. (10)
In May 2025, Keir Starmer PM announced a visa-deal with India which could potentially bring in tens of thousands more people from India. All of them will have the right to vote at every election in the UK, as soon as they arrive, and regardless of how long they are staying for.
This has serious political consequences, and it needs to stop.
OUR RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the only foreign citizens who should be allowed to vote in the UK are the genuine British subjects of the other 14 Crown Commonwealth countries where the King is the Head of State – and only if there are reciprocal agreements in place – and as of right, the British subjects of the 14 British Overseas Territories, of whom there are only very few resident in this country anyway. (See footnotes 1 and 2)
This isn't even a controversial point to make! Voting is a privilege, not a right.
If we choose to give the vote to others it should be on the basis of a constitutional-connection to the UK. Today, the only constitutionally-valid connection, beyond British citizenship, is being "a Subject of the King".
It might also be noted that any reciprocal agreement is going to work out to the advantage of the Crown Commonwealth country, since there will always be more of their people in the UK than our people in their countries. In that case, some people might prefer simply to abolish voting rights for all Commonwealth countries, including the Crown Commonwealth countries, and only allow it for the British Overseas Territories.
Either way, the present system is unsustainable. It must change.
FOOTNOTES
1. The 14 British Overseas Territories
There will only be a few of these people legally resident in the UK, and it is understandable that they should have the vote, since their countries are part of the UK's jurisdiction and have the King as Head of State:
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Island
St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus (Akrotiri, Dhekelia)
Turks and Caicos Islands
2. The 12 Commonwealth countries with which we currently have reciprocal voting arrangements in place (Crown Commonwealth countries in bold) are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.
In addition, New Zealand gives the right to vote to foreign citizens only if they are granted permanent residence status. Malawi lets foreign citizens who have been resident for 7 years vote.
3. EU Member States whose nationals can vote only in Local Elections in England and Northern Ireland, as a result of the UK having a reciprocal agreement that British nationals can also vote at their Local Elections:
Denmark
Luxembourg
Poland
Portugal
Spain
4. Unfortunately, the 1914 Act does not define the phrase "British subject" any more specifically. The "Definitions" section at sec 27 is not particularly helpful. It states:
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
The expression "British subject" means a person who is a natural-born British subject [which has already been defined for us anyway by Part 1 (1)(a) and (b)], or a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted, or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory:
5. Bill Parsons, Strangers at the Gate: A History of UK Immigration Control 1962-2022, (Printed by Amazon: 2022), pp157-158.
6. Ibid at pp158-159.
7. Bill Parsons, Drowning a Fish: An Unofficial History of UK Immigration Control 1793-1962, (Printed by Amazon: 2017) at p379.
8. Hansard (Commons), 27 Feb 1968, cols 1262-3, and quoted in Bill Parsons, "Drowning a Fish", Ibid at p379.
9. See for example the ONS figures released on 22-5-25 for year ending December 2024, which state "The provisional estimate for total long-term immigration for YE December 2024 is 948,000".
10. This is taken from the ONS Excel spreadsheet downloadable from here. Click on "Year ending December 2024 edition of this dataset". In the spreadsheet, click on Table 3a.
For more articles on this subject see our Territorial Sovereignty: Article Index
SUPPORT A FORCE FOR GOOD
If you think our comprehensive and educational research and publications, and our colourful physical activism is worth supporting, then please help us to keep up this good work!
Comentarios