British expats are taking their urgent battle for the right to vote in the EU referendum to the Supreme Court.
They are asking the highest court in the land to overturn decisions of both the High Court and Court of Appeal that they are not eligible to vote on June 23 because they have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years.
London-born war veteran Harry Shindler, 95, who has lived in Italy for 35 years, and solicitor Jacquelyn MacLennan, 54, from Inverness, who has lived in Belgium since 1987, are both fighting the 15-year rule.
Read more: British expats lose Court of Appeal battle for right to vote in EU referendum
They want the Supreme Court justices to declare the rule, contained in Section 2 of the EU Referendum Act 2015, an unjustified restriction on their EU right to freedom of movement and an infringement of their common law right to vote.
The appeal court held that the 2015 Act does not fall within the scope of EU law at all and their challenge "falls at the first hurdle".
Both want the right to vote against Brexit in a bid to protect their way of life.
The test case is being watched by many other expats living in other EU countries who fear a Leave vote will lead to them being deprived of EU citizenship and the rights that go with it.
Ms MacLennan, who specialises in EU competition and environmental law and is a partner in the Brussels office of a global law firm, said: "Brexit would have a huge impact on my personal and professional life.
"Excluding two million citizens like me from voting - as the Government recognises - is unjust and unfair."
Read more: High Court reserves judgement on allowing expats to vote in EU referendum
Mr Shindler said: "I am still waiting for the Government to tell us why British citizens in Europe can't vote in this referendum.
"The Government had agreed to scrap the 15-year rule before the Referendum Bill was passed, agreeing it was arbitrary and undemocratic."
Both Ms MacLennan and Mr Shindler are barred from the referendum franchise because, having lived abroad for 15 years, they are deemed no longer to have a "closeness of connection" to the UK to justify giving them the franchise.
Mr Shindler fails the "closeness" test, despite being born in London, fighting in the nation's armed forces and still being a taxpayer.
The UK passport holder was in the Second World War landings at Anzio. His big fear is that a Brexit vote could lose him EU citizenship and seriously disrupt his way of life in Italy.
In 2014 he was awarded an MBE for his services to Anglo-Italian relations. He still pays taxes on his pension to HM Revenue and Customs.
Rejecting the expat challenge, the appeal judges - Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Elias and Lady Justice King - declared the 15-year rule did not amount to an unjustified restriction on EU law rights to freedom of movement or to the common law right to vote.
Summing up the ruling, Lord Dyson said the 2015 Act did not fall within the scope of EU law at all and the challenge "falls at the first hurdle".
The judge said the EU recognised that a decision of a member state on whether or not to withdraw from the EU was "an exercise of national sovereignty" governed by a country's own constitutional arrangements.
Even if the 2015 Act was within the scope of EU law, said the judge, it did not amount to a restriction on free movement rights.
Parliament had the right to determine the scope of the referendum, and any common law right to vote did not take precedence over an Act of Parliament, said the judge.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here