Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I don't see the point of pretending that traitors are foreigners. Shamima Begum may have been a traitor deserving of a 50 year sentence, or she may have been a stupid teenager; but, as you say, she is British and our problem.

It all looks like an attempt to avoid responsibilty to me; either the necessity to impose harsh sentences for treason or to be forgiving and get condemned by right-wing yahoos.

Yeah - it probably is worth noting there's two strands to depriving citizenship.

One has historically been more common which is if you acquire British citizenship you can lose it if it's discovered you obtained it through fraud, lying or concealing material facts. The classic example here is people who provided the wrong name when there were very serious outstanding warrants against them, or who lied about their refugee status. I'd be surprised if that's not pretty normal in some form or other everywhere and is still the most common grounds for someone losing their citizenship.

The second one is stripping it if it's "conducive to the public good". That used to be very rare - it basically happened to a few Russian spies (it might have happened to Kim Philby or Guy Burgess once they were in Moscow). It's still largely terrorism, spies and war crimes that are the most common reasons. Even then it has been rare but peaked with IS - so in 2014, 23 people were stripped of their citizenship on public good grounds and all were IS fighters. In the last few years it has expanded to be used for serious organised crime - so a number of members of the Rochdale grooming/child sex gang. The scope is definitely expanding into organised crime as well as the "traditional" areas like terrorism, espionage etc.

The issue here is that there's been a case working its way through the courts that the government lost over the last couple of years that said they didn't take enough steps to actually provide notice to someone before their citizenship is removed. If you don't give noticed beforehand, then the decision is unlawful and void. It should be said the bar for "notice" is incredibly low - it's enough to mail someone at their last known address, but the Home Office needs to do that first. So they're changing the law. On a purely legal note the intended amend is probably to stop lawyers having an avenue around notice to get the courts involved - but the amend is incredibly loosely drafted so the courts would definitely end up getting involved.

Although I actually think the worrying trend is not necessarily this shift in law around notice, though that's not good, but the expansion (which the courts have been okay with) of the "public good" definition to include serious organised crime. I think that feels a little bit thin end of the wedge and likely to only expand and potentially be abused. I think it'd be worth re-examining the whole "conducive to the public good" grounds.

Wow.

Deprivation of citizenship against the will of the concerned person is impossible here as it was a tool the Nazis used systematically against their opponents and against Jewish citizens.

I think many other European countries have some mechanism for stripping of citizenship - it was definitely a thing with IS fighters/volunteers. The UK is not the only state that's done that in the last few years. It's certainly been done by Denmark (more generally there is almost no outrageous British anti-immigration policy that wasn't pioneered by Denmark - apparently they are very closely watched by Patel and her advisers for insipration) and Belgium. I remember reading articles in the late 10s about European IS fighters with dual citizenship having their citizenship revoked and coming under lots of criticism - from Trump of all people, but others too for it.

I think the UK is more expansive in including not just dual citizens but people who could get citizenship in another country. But the UK tends to be, with France, one of the more jus soli countries in Europe when it comes to citizenship - and I think if that's your basis then it should be like the US. For better or worse, if you have citizenship we're stuck with you and it's on us to, for example, repatriate them. Because if that's your route it basically is a right and not a privilege, with all that flows from that which includes responsibility as a country for your citizens.

I believe a lot of nations have high hurdles for stripping citizenship? And I know it's incredibly hard in Germany as Zanza says; not least in cases where a person would be left without any official nationality afterwards.

I mean if you want to deport a stateless person ... where to?

They can't make someone stateless. The person needs to be a dual citizen or (since 2014 - this was the IS amendment) they need to have reasonable grounds for believing they can become a national of another country - arguably the most exposed are people born in Northern Ireland (who can always become Irish) and British Jews (who are always able to move to Israel and become a citizen). I don't think those are most likely to be affected but it's a disproportionate risk just because of their ethnicity or place of birth.

In practice, so far it has been less about deportation people than trying to avoid responsibility for repatriating themfrom camps in Turkey - it's an easy way of washing our hands and leaving that problem to the Turks or Iraqis. As I say my view is that's still wrong and those people are British and they are our problem and we should repatriate them. If this power expands into more serious organised crime territory then it's definitely going to lead to deportations and, as you say, you could end up with someone who is capable of having another citizenship but doesn't (and I don't see how you could force someone to acquire citizenship elsewhere).

And administratively it's not easy - there are lots of appeal processes but some of them for terrorism/national security cases get into the Kafkaesque special court systems that can hear evidence from the intelligence services and is a nightmare on its grounds.

[Josquius]

What's particular horrid about the Begum case is the government saw no issue in treating her baby the same way despite her family back home being more than willing to raise him and her willing to let him go.
The government instead was happier to let the kid die.

[The Brain]

A Swedish citizen who lives or has lived in Sweden cannot be deprived of their citizenship. It's in the constitution.

A Swedish citizen who wasn't born in Sweden and has never lived in Sweden and who hasn't visited Sweden in a way that indicates a connection (visiting relatives count, visiting Stockholm for 24h during a cruise doesn't) lose their citizenship when they turn 22. However, when they're 18 or older they can apply to keep it and this may be granted. And they will not lose the citizenship if it would make them stateless.

From a Swedish perspective the UK way seems... unusual.

[celedhring]

Spanish citizenship can't be taken away by the state if you were born with it. There's some instances where it's understood that you have forfeited it (i.e. when acquiring another citizenship with a state without a dual nationality treaty).

If you weren't born Spanish IIRC you can only get it taken away if you take arms against the country. Or if you committed some kind of fraud when acquiring it.

It was often joked how one of the bizarre after-effects of Catalan independence would have been the fact that Catalans would have retained Spanish citizenship.

[Sheilbh]

A Swedish citizen who lives or has lived in Sweden cannot be deprived of their citizenship. It's in the constitution.

A Swedish citizen who wasn't born in Sweden and has never lived in Sweden and who hasn't visited Sweden in a way that indicates a connection (visiting relatives count, visiting Stockholm for 24h during a cruise doesn't) lose their citizenship when they turn 22. However, when they're 18 or older they can apply to keep it and this may be granted. And they will not lose the citizenship if it would make them stateless.

From a Swedish perspective the UK way seems... unusual.

Yeah. Looking it up - because IS did shift things - 19 EU Member States have powers to strip dual citizens of their citizenship, those powers broadly expanded in the 2010s especially in relation to when someone could be stripped of their citizenship. Similarly other countries, such as Canada, also created powers to strip dual citizens of their citizenship in 2014 in response to IS - Australia did the same except it was automatic so if you were a dual citizen and engaged in terrorism overseas you automatically lost your Australian citizenship.

In the UK that power already existed, but following the rise of IS it moved from only applying to dual citizens to people who "could have dual citizenship" which I think is far too broad.

But it's not possible if it would make someone stateless.

[Sheilbh]

Spanish citizenship can't be taken away by the state if you were born with it. There's some instances where it's understood that you have forfeited it (i.e. when acquiring another citizenship with a state without a dual nationality treaty).

I think this might also be part of it - the UK has unrestricted dual or multiple citizenship.

My suspicion is that European countries that have relatively easy rules on dual citizenship (Belgium or the UK) or have that plus it being easy to get citizenship by descent (Ireland or Italy) will have rules around revoking citizenship for dual citizens. Similarly looking at Canada and Australia where I think dual citizenship doesn't have any particular rules.

Countries that are more restrictive around dual citizenship - which I understand is the case in Germany and maybe Austria and is limited by treaties in Spain - it'll be far more difficult because the default assumption is if you have citizenship, then that is your citizenship v it may be one of your citizenships and not necessarily the "primary" one you rely on in day-to-day life it could be something you've acquired for emotional reasons or to keep it open for your kids.

It's a little out of date but there's a 2018 European Parliament report on the citizenship which covers involuntary loss: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625116/EPRS_BRI(2018)625116_EN.pdf

[Tamas]

I did some quick Googling:

Since 1990, the ONLY way for Hungarian citizenship to be stripped away if it has been proven it has been acquired fraudulently.

Dual citizenships are allowed, the apparent simple stance on this is that if someone is a Hungarian citizen in addition to any other citizenship, they will be considered Hungarian citizens when under Hungarian jurisdiction and their other citizenships will not be considered.

You can also voluntarily relinquish your Hungarian citizenship, usually when required to obtain another country's citizenship.

[Josquius]

Spanish citizenship can't be taken away by the state if you were born with it. There's some instances where it's understood that you have forfeited it (i.e. when acquiring another citizenship with a state without a dual nationality treaty).

If you weren't born Spanish IIRC you can only get it taken away if you take arms against the country. Or if you committed some kind of fraud when acquiring it.

It was often joked how one of the bizarre after-effects of Catalan independence would have been the fact that Catalans would have retained Spanish citizenship.

I remember at the Scottish independence ref time this was a question and they of course were insisting they'd have their cake and eat it, keeping both their British passport and gaining a new Scottish one.
Which doesn't seem right at all.
The

[Sheilbh]

I did some quick Googling:

Since 1990, the ONLY way for Hungarian citizenship to be stripped away if it has been proven it has been acquired fraudulently.

Dual citizenships are allowed, the apparent simple stance on this is that if someone is a Hungarian citizen in addition to any other citizenship, they will be considered Hungarian citizens when under Hungarian jurisdiction and their other citizenships will not be considered.

You can also voluntarily relinquish your Hungarian citizenship, usually when required to obtain another country's citizenship.

With dual citizenship is part of that - a bit like with Ireland and Italy - because there's a large diaspora that people want to maintain a connection with, plus I imagine Trianon Hungarians in other countries?

I'm just thinking in terms of what I've read about Orban making it easy for some Hungarian citizens (mainly in neighbouring countries) to vote while it's more difficult for young Hungarians who have emigrated to vote overseas.

I remember at the Scottish independence ref time this was a question and they of course were insisting they'd have their cake and eat it, keeping both their British passport and gaining a new Scottish one.

That seems fair to me. People born before independence keep British citizenship (and can otherwise acquire it by descent if that's possible - I don't know) but also from independence have Scottish citizenship.

[Tamas]

With dual citizenship is part of that - a bit like with Ireland and Italy - because there's a large diaspora that people want to maintain a connection with, plus I imagine Trianon Hungarians in other countries?

I'm just thinking in terms of what I've read about Orban making it easy for some Hungarian citizens (mainly in neighbouring countries) to vote while it's more difficult for young Hungarians who have emigrated to vote overseas.

I'd imagine that's part of the motivation for making dual citizenship super-easy, yes, although this isn't an Orban-era change as far as I am aware.

Regardless though, matters of (not) revoking citizenship is one area where apparently modern Hungary is far more lenient and civilised than the UK is.

[Sheilbh]

I'd imagine that's part of the motivation for making dual citizenship super-easy, yes, although this isn't an Orban-era change as far as I am aware.

Yeahh - no doubt. I think it's pretty common for countries that have a diaspora that is seens as somewhat unfairly forced - so I imagine in Hungary, Trianon is part of that. In Ireland there is a very strong awareness that the island of Ireland still has a smaller population than it did prior to the famine and that there were generations of emigration because of poverty under British rule (and latterly also Dev's Ireland) - so the diaspora doesn't exist because people wanted to move somewhere new they werer forced out by huge push factors. I think there's a similar sense in Italy with, especially, Italian-Americans.

Regardless though, matters of (not) revoking citizenship is one area where apparently modern Hungary is far more lenient and civilised than the UK is.

Yes - though none of us can hold a candle to Croatia or Poland who apparently can't revoke citizenship in any circumstances. According to that European Parliament paper they don't revoke for any of the normal reasons: fraud, disloyalty/treason, service in a foreign army, acquisition of another citizenship or residence abroad.

Once you're in, you're in

[Tamas]

TBF though you can't get Polish citizenship without relinquishing the ones you held previously. I know, I checked, I wanted 3 passports.

[Sheilbh]

TBF though you can't get Polish citizenship without relinquishing the ones you held previously. I know, I checked, I wanted 3 passports.

Oh okay - so that sounds quite intense. They'll never kick you out, but you can't go anywhere else

As ever - good piece by John Harris. I've said it before but I don't think the 2019 election map is the end of a re-alignment, but I think there is a re-alignment. I think Brexit (like the Scottish Indy Ref) burned through traditional loyalties to parties and currently things are in flux for canny and nimble politicians to build/re-structure their coalitions. It's not clear where we end up at the end of this, but I think we're definitely in one of those moments where the kaleidoscope's been shaken:

A Conservative party divided is one more unintended consequence of Brexit
John Harris
New Tory MPs do not share the values of the second-jobbing old guard. And revolutions have a way of undoing their elders
Sun 21 Nov 2021 12.51 GMT

Conservative MPs have had second, third and fourth jobs for years. From time to time, the intersection between some Tories' idea of public service and their pursuit of money has burst into the headlines. But thanks to an uneasy mixture of low expectations of politicians, a certain deference, and the idea that Tory avarice was part of the natural order of things, most of the people involved have been left alone.

Suddenly, though, we seem to be in one of those political moments that is not so much about new revelations as an instant realisation that what was tolerated or ignored yesterday ought to be rejected today. Why the shift? The most obvious explanation is Boris Johnson's self-described act of "crashing the car" in the Owen Paterson case, and how an attempt to change the rules on parliamentary standards highlighted the contorted ethics of scores of MPs. But there are other reasons, too – one of which is a huge change that is only just starting to be understood.

Two years ago, 107 new Conservative MPs were elected, and the views they have and the places they represent are starting to have a fascinating effect on Tory politics. Up until the Brexit referendum, the Conservative party tended to be seen as the enduring voice of the shires and suburbs, speaking for and to those who were either rich or comfortably off, and millions of others who at least aspired to be. When the party had extended its appeal in the past, it was by offering people individual advancement, rather than by economic interventionism – most spectacularly, when Margaret Thatcher encouraged people to own their council houses via the right-to-buy scheme. In that context, if the people at the top of the party made money by fair or foul means, they were only living the dream they offered the electorate at large– not least in the 1980s, when the comedian Harry Enfield invented a ubiquitous character called "Loadsamoney", and the old Tory vision of the property-owning democracy was joined by the brief dream of millions of people owning and trading in shares.

But eventually, something very interesting happened. From around 2012 onwards, in response to Labour's weakening connection with some of its old core vote, some adventurous Conservatives (the Harlow MP Robert Halfon is a good example) had held out the idea of the Tories somehow becoming a new "workers' party", and re-embracing the idea of an activist state. None of this ever cohered into anything solid. But when Brexit broke politics open, and seats in the so-called red wall fell to the Tories, vague hopes of the party acquiring a new support in the post-industrial north and Midlands suddenly became a reality.

After Theresa May had already begun to point her party in a more collectivist direction, this huge electoral shift was reflected in Johnson's promises of "levelling up" and his apparent belief in the power of government. But in retrospect, because the prime minister's politics are emotional and short-termist, and thanks to both his own wealth and his ties to other moneyed people, he perhaps failed to realise something obvious: that the politics of the red wall might well demand a profound change not just in rhetoric and policy but in Tory behaviour. We now see the results of that oversight. If in solid Conservative seats many people's feelings about MPs' interests and ethics are suddenly hostile, you can imagine how so-called sleaze is going down in such new Tory territory as the old Derbyshire coalfield or the Potteries.

Over the past 10 days, this part of the current Tory drama has begun to play out in the Commons chamber, as well as the party's inner circles. Among the 13 Tory MPs who voted against changing the rules governing the parliamentary standards system were the new Conservative representatives of such seats as Hartlepool, Scunthorpe and Newcastle-under-Lyme. Mark Fletcher, the MP for Bolsover (elected in 2019 in a seat represented for 49 years by Labour's Dennis Skinner), abstained on the vote, but later made a righteous speech in the Commons taking aim at "some senior colleagues on the backbenches" who thought he had not yet understood "how this place really works". His punchline came with a compelling irreverence: "I think that two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong."

None of this has yet hardened into factional warfare. But there does seem to be a deepening estrangement between the kind of long-serving, often complacent MPs whose seats tend to be in traditional Tory areas and younger colleagues who have a self-awareness suited to the social media age, and often practise their Conservatism in more challenging territory. As an unnamed Tory recently told the Daily Mail, the former kind of MP thinks that their annual pay of £82,000 "is the basic salary, which they can build up outside Westminster", while the latter "considers £82,000 all the money in the world". Moreover, seasoned Tories are often old-school Thatcherites who are sceptical about "levelling up", whereas many of the party's new MPs were elected on the promise of government coming to the aid of their areas.

The fact that more senior Conservative MPs include a lot of zealous backers of Brexit – think of Paterson, John Redwood or Iain Duncan Smith – gives the story a fascinating twist. When a movement pulls off a revolution, the casualties are often its elders. And so it might prove in this case: our exit from the EU was led by older, rightwing Tories, but has given rise to a younger cohort of Conservatives, many of whose visions of post-Brexit Tory politics are very different from theirs. Where the prime minister sits in all this is a very interesting question: dining at the Garrick, currying favour with older, more privileged Brexiteers, and trying to smooth over the Paterson fiasco with the most trifling of changes to rules on second jobs does not really suggest someone who understands either basic leadership or the challenges his party faces – nor where its future probably lies.

Johnson should also be worried about the apparently dwindling credibility of his "levelling up" drive, symbolised by last week's broken promises on improvements to the rail system and the fact that the government's social care plans will disproportionately hit pensioners in less well-off places. There is something about the combination of that story and the second-jobs mess that highlights glaring Tory shortages: of working-class voices in the cabinet, any policy as potent and totemic as right to buy – and, even after two years, any real sense of what "levelling up" actually means. The usual caveat applies: Tory woe does not entail a convincing Labour revival. But one modern political truth seems unquestionable. We live in irreverent, rebellious, volatile times – and though senior Conservatives have so far used those currents to their advantage, they may sooner or later find themselves being swept away.

    John Harris is a Guardian columnist

I'd add that this started under Theresa May (and she did most of the heavy lifting in terms of increasing the Tory vote) - so lots of those new Tory areas like Walsall and Derbyshire and Cleveland went Tory in 2017 and if you include them it's probably something like 1/3-1/2 of the parliamentary party who are new-ish MPs.

[The Larch]

I know, I checked, I wanted 3 passports.

Mono, is that you?

The UK is not the only state that's done that in the last few years. It's certainly been done by Denmark (more generally there is almost no outrageous British anti-immigration policy that wasn't pioneered by Denmark - apparently they are very closely watched by Patel and her advisers for insipration) and Belgium.

Other Tories seem to prefer the Australian model of storing darkies in far flung islands:

Tory MPs suggest sending migrants to UK to the Falklands
(...)
Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, said he lobbied an immigration minister two weeks ago to say that offshore processing, where those who seek asylum are sent abroad while their cases are processed, should begin as soon as possible.

"I would be in favour of [using] the Falkland Islands. The only way we will put these people off is by giving them the message that if you come here you are going to be sent 8,000 miles away," he said.

[Josquius]

That seems fair to me. People born before independence keep British citizenship (and can otherwise acquire it by descent if that's possible - I don't know) but also from independence have Scottish citizenship.

That doesn't seem right to me. If everyone gets to remain british whilst gaining a Scottish passport then what was the point of independence? Why not just do it if theres nothing lost.
The way I saw it British citizenship was being split in two and 100% born and raised Scotsmen should pick one - those with links elswhere in the UK that would normally qualify them for British citizenship would perhaps be an exception allowed to keep double. Then there's the problem of Scots elsewhere in the UK who would also likely need both.

The previous example of Irish independence doesn't really apply either with the fact Britain didn't do citizenship back then.