The British Nationality Act 1948 was an Act of the British Parliament which established the status of Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC), the national citizenship of the United Kingdom and those places that were still British colonies on 1 January 1949, when the 1948 Act came into force. However, until the early 1960s there was little difference, if any, in United Kingdom law between the rights of CUKCs and other British subjects, all of whom had the right at any time to enter and live in the United Kingdom. The act effectively allowed any one of the 800 million subjects of the King in the British Empire to live and work in the UK, without needing a visa. One of the reasons why the act was implemented was that many of the MPs of the day thought that few citizens of the Empire would want to reside in the UK. Indeed, the act was passed with little debate, a stark contrast from the current immigration debates in the UK. The Act was mostly repealed in 1983.
"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms"
What is meant by "relations between nations", when the pledge is between "Member States", any one of which may have citizens of various national origins, who may still identify themselves as much by their nations, or national origins, as by their legal citizenship?
"Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
followed by:
"Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
and then:
"Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
and then:
"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
It would be so much simpler if the citizens of each internationally recognised state comprised all the members of one ancestral nation, and only members of that ancestral nation, all of whom could regard the territory of that state as their shared country, their ancestral national homeland, and theirs alone; but that isn't the case, and it never has been.
=================
Nationality
Question
Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Office for National Statistics recognises English as a nationality. [HL1428]
Lord Patel of Bradford: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Karen Dunnell, National Statistician, to Lord Stoddart of Swindon, dated February 2009.
As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your Question asking Her Majesty's Government whether the Office for National Statistics recognises English as a nationality; and, if not, why. (HL1428)
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does recognise English as a national identity. For the 2011 Census, we have proposed asking everyone to describe their national identity. English is one of the specific tick boxes.
However ONS treats nationality as synonymous with citizenship, which has a legal definition related to passport eligibility. ONS is planning to ask a citizenship question in the 2011 Census, based upon passport eligibility. This will measure UK citizenship.
24 Feb 2009 : Column WA60
Both nationality and national identity are currently collected in social surveys, such as the Labour Force Survey and the Annual Population Survey.
=================
CITIZENSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. RENOUNCING IT. 1.2.2003.
“The Convention on Nationality is designed to introduce some measure of harmonisation between the nationality laws of the different States by establishing rules and principles relating to nationality, multiple nationality and statelessness.”
“Many of the amendments contained in the British Government’s “Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill” are designed to bring UK law in line with the requirements of the Convention.” (Those quotes are from the Gov Research Paper 02/25)
The following items are taken from the European Convention on Nationality, Explanatory Report.
(2) Most countries of Central and Eastern Europe use the term "citizenship" which has the same meaning as the term "nationality" used in the Convention and by most Western European States.
. The 1963 Convention and developments in Europe thereafter
Chapter I of the 1963 Convention is based on the idea, broadly accepted by many Western European States at that time, that multiple nationality was undesirable and should be avoided as far as possible. Article 1 of that Convention provides in particular that nationals who acquire of their own free will another nationality shall lose their former nationality and shall, subject to a reservation, not be authorised to retain it.
Nevertheless, the 1963 Convention recognises that multiple nationality does occur in particular where a second nationality of a State Party has been acquired automatically or where a State, which is not a Party to Chapter I of the Convention, allows multiple nationality in other cases. Therefore Chapter II, which may be accepted by a State Party even if it has not accepted Chapter I, contains rules on military obligations in cases of multiple nationality in order to ensure that persons with multiple nationality are not required to carry out their military obligations in more than one State Party.
The question of allowing persons, who voluntarily acquire another nationality, to retain their previous nationality will depend upon the individual situation in States. In some States, especially when a large proportion of persons wish to acquire or have acquired their nationality, it may be considered that the retention of another nationality could hinder the full integration of such persons. However other States may consider it preferable to facilitate the acquisition of their nationality by allowing persons to retain their nationality of origin and thus further their integration in the receiving State (e.g. to enable such persons to retain the nationality of other members of the family or to facilitate their return to their country of origin if they so wish).
[At no time did British citizens willingly enter into or accept “citizenship of the European Union,” the people were never allowed or given a “say” on this through a referendum.]
Article 2 – Definitions.
The concept of nationality was explored by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm Case. The Court defined nationality as "a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties" (Nottebohm Case, ICJ Reports 1955, p.23).
"Nationality" is defined in Article 2 of the Convention as "the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person's ethnic origin". It thus refers to a specific legal relationship between an individual and a State which is recognised by that State. As already indicated in the footnote to paragraph 1 of this Explanatory Report, with regard to the effects of the Convention, the terms "nationality" and "citizenship" are synonymous.
*****************************
Lord Lester of Herne Hill then asked; “Whether they intend to sign and ratify the European Convention on Nationality; and, if so, (a) whether they will consult Parliament before doing so; and (b) whether they will publish an explanatory memorandum describing their reasons for wishing to ratify the convention and the consequences of ratification for United Kingdom law and practice”. [HL5215]
To which Lord Filkin Replied: “If the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is enacted in its present form, we shall, once its provisions are brought into force, be in a position to sign and ratify the convention and would hope to do so. We would expect to sign the convention and lay it before Parliament with an explanatory memorandum”.
From the order in which that was said, it rather looks to me as if the convention will be signed and ratified before it is laid before Parliament.
**************************
Most persons (Subject to “British citizenship law” at the time) born in Britain are citizens (used to be called subjects of the Crown) of this Country, although they do not swear an oath of allegiance out loud, it is as if they had done, for they come under the protection of the Crown from the moment they are born.
There is however a constant search by the Commission for a more ‘deeper’, ‘meaningful’ citizenship for the European Union, and many have been the debates on this very subject. After all there is no point in having a “State” if it has no citizens of its own to Govern.
Although we are told that EU citizenship does not, and will not REPLACE national citizenship, and will only enhance, etc, they (the powers that be in the European Union) are certainly going to an extraordinary lot of trouble for simply that.
A member of the European Parliament, Carlos Coelho, has produced a lengthy 28 page REPORT on the subject of citizenship, which was given (almost) unanimous approval in the European Parliament. To him it is “crucial that we implement a strategy of promoting European citizenship, at both the institutional and legislative levels, and in the terms of education and information”. Of course he wants a binding legal status to be given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
It was suggested by MEP De Rosa that a national holiday for Europe Day, which would create a connection between Europe and the people of Europe, and of course “it would bring home very strongly the idea that there is a benefit to being a European and being part of the European process”. Sadly it is only an “idea” and will remain an “idea” that there is benefit in being a European. If I had one available, I would offer a “Star” prize if anyone can name ONE ‘benefit’ we have had by being IN the European Community. I would forgo a ‘national holiday’, (If one was ever to be suggested) on our “national day”, it would be enough, just to see the National flag of England hoisted up on high on our National Saint’s Day, 23rd April, but even that has been dumbed down to give way to further integration into the dictatorship of the EU.
For the other side of the coin, MEP Pasqua wrote on the subject towards the debate in the EU Parliament, that “Citizenship is a political, not a technocratic concept, based on a political and not a bureaucratic reality, based on the roots that people put down, on belonging to a natural community”.
“Citizenship is a status that is only granted to those who, by virtue of their birth or their merits, share common values.”
“It also assumes the existence of a political area, the most advanced form of which is still the nation.”
“Yet, where is the European nation when it lacks what Renan called a desire to live together? Without language, culture and traditions shared by the peoples of the European Union, a European people is no more. As Joseph de Maistre would have said, no one has ever met “a European citizen”
“Your artificial citizenship has no substance whatsoever.”
MEP Berthu continues “The Report itself contains the traditional request to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, which would have the distinctive feature of removing the definition of a good number of citizens’ rights from natural democracies. I would point out that the Charter neatly sidesteps national citizenships and does not even mention the fundamental right of citizens to express themselves democratically within their own nations.”
“To briefly summarise, all these proposals and a good many others that I could refer to tend to reduce or limit the rights of nations. Even now, however, the institutions of the Union do not seem to understand the basic fact that citizens are deeply attached to their nations and by attacking or downgrading their nations they are hurting citizens and turning them away from Europe.” Berthu is correct in all he says particularly the “rights of the Nations citizens”, but what he does not seem to realise is, that “they” do not care, as long as they get their fully federal United States of Europe”.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, in my humble opinion, takes away more “rights” of the citizens of Nation states, than it gives.
MEP Kirkhope (in writing), “The British Conservatives believe that this is an ill-timed report which tries to move the discussion forward beyond what the representatives and the people themselves want. We believe that it should come about as a result of one’s citizenship of a Member State, and not of Europe. We are all, of course, ‘Europeans’ but most people would not recognise an actual citizenship of Europe as being superior to the citizenship of their own country. We want to make people more caring and interested in the communities in their own nation states rather than create an artificial right, as the rapporteur seems to be suggesting.”
“The British Conservatives are opposed to the principles of the report for the reasons outlined above.”
I leave the last word to member of the European Parliament, MEP Krarup, “Ever since the Edinburgh summit in 1992, the architects of the EU have been cultivating the view that European citizenship is not a substitute for national citizenship, but, on the contrary, that it supplements and broadens national citizenship by creating “EU rights”. “That is a distortion of the truth.”
“In the same breath as citizens’ rights are defined as “European Rights”, taking precedence over rights based on national legislation, in precisely the same breath, national citizenship is undermined. European citizenship is purely and simply integration through the back door. This political pickpocketing is at once antidemocratic and repressive. What is being proposed is the absorption of vital parts of countries’ legal systems, including criminal law and the police, into European citizenship. The belief seems to be that these Genuine values-democracy and the rule of law-can be acquired for the DKK2 000 million which the Commission has just allocated to strengthen the legitimacy of the European institutions.”
“There is something rotten”-not in Denmark, but the European Union. It is obvious that third country nationals should have the same rights as Member States’ nationals, but we do not need this measure to make that fact clear.”
Commissioner Vitorino after the usual rhetoric, such as, “it (EU citizenship) neither replaces not conflicts with national identity, but rather complements it”, goes on to say, “I fully agree that the concept of European citizenship must be implemented in all its dimensions, be they political, administrative, judicial, social or economic. We have reached a position in which citizens’ rights are, in the Member States of the Union, broadly respected, but in which there is still some legal discrepancies and practical obstacles to the full expression of European citizenship. We must further strive to resolve these discrepancies and obstacles, which prevent the citizens from enjoying their rights as European citizens.” He then goes on to emphasise the importance of giving the Charter the binding legal status so much needed to bring the citizens closer to each other, etc.
Commission President Prodi has also spoken at great length on the subject of European Citizenship and the inclusion into the new Constitution for the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. (See his speeches)
In 1988, the European Council decided to introduce a European dimension into school subjects such as literature, history, civics, geography, languages and music. Invoking a common history and cultural heritage would create legitimacy for future integration. This has resulted in several books/booklets being issued but most disturbing of all, is the unbalanced, almost brainwashing indoctrination of our vulnerable children which is going on almost unnoticed, and is most certainly not in the realms of the statutory duty in maintaining the political balance that is required. (See www.eun.org/portal/index_en.cfm or www.eun.org/org2.eun/en/en/index_spring.cm)
Although we here in the UK had ‘acknowledged’ the European Convention on Human Rights for a number of years, it was by following the instructions of the European Union that all Member States incorporated the Charter on Human Rights into National law, a move that yet again dealt severe blows into the sovereignty of this Country. It is now suggested of course that the European Union itself, also incorporates the Charter into its legislation, even though it is not technically a “State”. It does not take a genius to work out why.
For hundreds of years, Britain has had its own Fundamental Rights, Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement and the Great Charter, Magna Carta, all of which have stood the test of time until 1997 when great inroads have been made, to either ignore (as if they did not exist,) or to destroy them. The second Battle of the British people has begun.
All of these Common laws are the long-standing written parts of our Constitution, which we, the citizens of Britain are duty bound to jealously guard and protect, for to overthrow or destroy our Constitution brings about the heinous crime of treason.
What does citizenship/Nationality mean? (To me?). It is the feeling of ‘belonging’, a community of people by descent, history, hereditary, the setting down of ‘roots’ knowing where those roots came from, searching days gone by, family trees, knowing where your ‘loyalty’ lies, a common language, a sharing of a common heritage, wanting to belong to that group, taking part for good or ill, sharing joys and sorrows, united in grief, united in joy, accepting the laws, (the laws instigated in Britain preferably), the way of life, simply ‘fitting in’, a whole host of other things, for the list is endless.
But nowadays we are talking of a citizenship being forced upon us whether we like it or not, into a Community where even the politicians that run it have to have interpreters before even THEY can ‘talk’ to each other. They cannot even socialise with each other without an interpreter. A democracy is non-existent if most of its citizens cannot make themselves understood to each other. You cannot develop a “Constitutional European patriotism”, by rubbishing the patriotism that people have for the Country many of their relatives have fought and died for, that same country they bear allegiance to. (And that “rubbishing” sadly and rather foolishly has been done). Or “Loyalty” to a new European Constitution, which, by its very coming into existence would destroy their own Country’s Constitution.
A European identity has no historical reference, and there is most certainly not a European Union citizenship that is felt to be genuine and not of an artificial construction. I liken the present “citizenship” of the European Union to Candyfloss, looks good, plenty of it, but take a bite and you have a mouthful of nothingness. In other words it is a nonsense, but repeat it often enough and people may come to believe it exists. I have only ever heard those few would be ‘federalists in a United States of Europe’; say that they are “Europeans”, and who so obviously wish it was true. It is not possible to apply for EU citizenship on its own. (YET!)
However, having said that, as in all things “European Union wise”, once (IF) an “EU Constitution” is put in place, all those Countries that have accepted that Constitution (those that do not withdraw from the EU, that is) must realise that not only does that EU Constitution override their own national Constitutions, but EU citizenship automatically overrides national citizenships, thus becoming European before British.
I have read as much as is available to me on the subject of Citizenship. I now, although I may not be the first, and most definitely believe that I will not be the last, I renounce the European Union citizenship that was thrust upon me, without my consent or authorisation, and from this day forth let it be known that I am a British citizen only. I will require all official documents to record and show this fact.
I confirm my complete loyalty to my Country (The United Kingdom) and my oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, the Queen Elizabeth 11, Her Heirs and successors.
I am mindful of contentious Clause 4 in the Charter, involving as it does the deprivation of citizenship which is extended to all British citizens even to British born citizens, although the proposed Clause 40 (3) of the British Nationality Act provides that the Secretary of State may not exercise that power if it would thereby make a person stateless. The report goes on to say,
“This would no doubt remove the potential effect on most British citizens but could affect such persons who have dual nationality”.
Secretary of States change from time to time, and so may interpretation of laws. So, to ‘ere on the side of caution (a thing governments no longer do in the requirement for harmonisation in the Union) and my preference to be faithful and true to my own Country helped me to come to my decision against ‘dual’ Nationality/citizenship.
RECENTLY, SO MANY “RIGHTS” ALLEGEDLY GIVEN TO US. YET THE RIGHTS WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD FROM BIRTH, (ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES TAKEN FOR GRANTED), HAVE BEEN IGNORED, NOT BY THE ORDINARY PEOPLE, BUT HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND DESTROYED BY THOSE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER. WHAT PARLIAMENT DOES, IT CAN UNDO, WHERE PARLIAMENT HAS TRESPASSED ON PARTS OF OUR COMMON LAWS, THEY MUST BE RESTORED TO BE HELD IN PERPETUITY, AS OUR CONSTITUTION DECREES. xxxxxxxxxxxxx ap
Posts
