The letter is long-quite deliberately so-but it does allow you to read the then information collected for use in my letter.
Just a short letter will suffice to our new Home Secretary, Theresa May
If you think it worth-while please forward to all you know-the more letters they receive the better.
==============================
Address Removed
To The Rt Hon
Dear Home Secretary,
European Citizenship and renouncing it.
For the purpose of this letter, I follow the meaning that ‘Nationality’ and ‘Citizenship’ are one and the same as suggested in the European Convention on Nationality shown immediately below.
(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 only way to access the citizenship of the Union is by having one of the Member States nationalities. In other words (at the moment) it is not possible just to be a ‘European’ citizen. I have no knowledge if this position will remain though, should the EU take on its ‘state-like’ trappings?
It has been suggested through the debates and “contributions” in the Convention on the Future of Europe that ‘dual’ citizenship should be applied. Most certainly there have been many words on “bringing the citizens closer to the Union”, ‘ more involvement by citizens’ etc, and an emphasis on more deeper and meaningful citizenship of the European Union.
Commissioner Vitorino said, (European Parliament 4th September 2002) “it (EU citizenship) neither replaces not conflicts with national identity, but rather complements it”, further on he 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 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights the binding legal status so much needed to bring the citizens closer to each other, etc. (See also Romano Prodi’s speeches)
Recently, (week ending 5th April 2003) the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act became ‘live’, and has been acted upon by you sir, for it is your intention (from the newspapers) to rid this country of Abu Hamza. However, if no alternative British law exists to use against this person, then I doubt that Abu Hamza has actually committed any ‘crime’ in British law for surely other methods could have been used rather than removal of British citizenship? It is of course ‘illegal in International law, to make a person “Stateless”.
Although the Commission, Council of the Union, and words in the Treaty/Constitution/Constitutional Treaty may say “Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it”, we have seen this week, and read in the conventions recorded in this letter, that nation states so minded can remove national citizenship should they so wish to do, leaving British citizens as ‘European’ citizens only if, in the fullness of time, European citizenship becomes more meaningful, deeper, or fuller citizenship as is proposed, especially should the EU eventually reach ‘Statehood’. The ability is there in law for the removal of “citizenship”, and it would be reckless and irresponsible not to recognise that fact and prepare to prevent such action.
I followed the progress of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill through Parliament and record here one passage appropriate to this letter.
Lords Hansard 18th July 2002 (220718w03) When asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill about the state of ratification of the European Convention on Nationality, Lord Filkin gave the reply “Close examination of the convention led the Government to conclude that, because of the discrepancies between current British nationality law and the convention, it would not be possible to sign and ratify the convention without amending the law. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill provided the first legislative opportunity to bring forward the necessary amendments.”
Article 1 of the European Convention on Nationality, 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. (Would a reservation be put in place? Could that ‘reservation’ be removed at any time in the future?)
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.
The International Law Commission on the subject of Nationality reinforces the Council of Europe’s findings above, and also especially (and most importantly) the provisions that no person shall be made “Stateless”, even temporarily.
I state here known facts that at no time did British citizens willingly (of their own free will) enter into or accept “citizenship of the European Union.” The British people were never asked if they wanted to become ‘citizens of the European Union’, the people of this country were not given or allowed a ‘say’ through a referendum. Most certainly it was not a voluntary arrangement entered into by even one ordinary citizen of the United Kingdom, the exceptions were some members of the Government and Parliament and those that signed and accepted the Treaty on European Union knowing (unlike the citizens who were kept uninformed) full well the constitutional implications of that Treaty (Maastricht).
Whether the Nation States can remain as allegedly ‘independent’ Nation States after acceptance of a constitution for the European Union which will apply over all the separates nations, remains to be seen.
There is ample scope in International Law for “Transfer of Part of the Territory”, “Unification of States”, “Dissolution of a State”, “Attribution of the nationality of the successor State”, “Withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State”, etc, etc. I have come to the conclusion that by renouncing the European citizenship that was thrust upon me, and again will renounce it on any day that the proposed treacherous constitutional Treaty is accepted by this government, I will remain a British citizen only.
I wonder if the time will ever come when I will be the only British citizen without a British Country left, to be a citizen of?
This Government has made very clear that we in this country will not be allowed a referendum on whether to accept a constitution for the European Union or not. I am also aware that even if a ‘referendum’ was held in the UK and the result was not to the liking of the Government, that it could ignore the outcome should it so desire. (Recently debated in Parliament) Not very popular with the people and certainly not very ‘democratic’.
Prime Minister Blair has said that he will sign the proposed forthcoming “constitutional” document just like any other treaty and not hold a referendum. (Even though, when implemented, it would have devastating implications on our Parliament, Government, Crown, ancient constitution, legal systems, and of course most importantly, all the citizens and future generations of the United Kingdom, it would also be forever, irreversible.) Yes the constitutional implications are enormous and insurmountable.
My own personal view on a referendum may seem odd to some, (but not to a Constitutional Lawyer) for not only do I strongly believe that it would be unlawful for this government to accept a "Constitution" for the European Union (for we are bound by the constraints of our present Constitution and our oaths of allegiance as are all our politicians.) and by the same token, it would also be unlawful for the people of this country to be asked to say "yes" in a referendum in accepting a "constitution" for the European Union, which, by automatically overriding our own would thus 'destroy' our constitution, or render it useless, a nonsense, a scrap of papers with no meaning etc. It would, I believe, also be unlawful for the government to encourage the people to destroy their own constitution. The only way we may accept an alien constitution is if we had lost a war, the conquering country then imposes its constitution, laws and regulations, on us, and then we would have to accept it.
Nowhere in the history of this country have I been able to find that this country adopted or accepted an alien “constitution” that would automatically override our own. Entering into many Treaties yes, but not such a document as is proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe. A document, which seems to be following the Feasibility Study, known as “Penelope”. Most certainly never one that has made British citizens into citizens of the continent of Europe, named “European Citizens”.
Without doubt, I see the proposals as “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom.
Whether through a ‘Constitutional document’ or a “Treaty”, should that Treaty prevent for all time (as it will) the citizens of this Country from using and having the protection of their very basic fundamental Common Law Rights and their safeguards in Magna Carta, The Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, etc, it would be unlawful, for Parliament may not alter nor repeal, or ignore any of those ancient rights, for they are a compact between the Crown and the subjects of the Crown, and one which even Her Majesty may not break.
Our Common Laws are the very foundations of our Constitution in the same way that the European Union want to have the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as the basic foundation of their proposed Constitution.
For independent confirmation re Magna Carta, I quote Lord Renton when he said (Lords Hansard 20th July 2000) “My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.”
Side by side with my British Citizenship is my Oath of Allegiance to my Queen and to my Country. I have no choice in the matter, put quite simply, it is my duty and one I shall never waver from. Even though there is, at the moment, no requirement to say out loud that Oath of Allegiance, for it is taken as read, we all have the protection of the Crown even when abroad. I therefore renounce the European Citizenship that has been forced upon me and once again reiterate that my loyalty and allegiance remain as always to the Crown and this, my country.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxxxxxxxx ap
Copy to Shadow Home Secretary,
The Lord Chancellor
Copy to?????
Copy to????
And also with a covering letter to various newspapers.
Posts
