British Politics Guide

[chris_notts]

Boris is apparently "furious" because he's managed to miss the message from the EU since the very beginning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-51345055

Apparently he sees EU messaging that only a basic deal can be done within one year, and that free access with no barriers to the single market is dependent on how integrated the UK wants to remain with the regulatory infrastructure, as some kind of betrayal. If this isn't just posturing from the mop-headed buffoon, I'm genuinely puzzled how this is a surprise. I would have thought that the idea that the EU will accept a zero-checks trade deal on the basis of "regulatory equivalence", that favourite phrase of the ERG, was long dead by now.

The blame game for the 2021 recession has already started.

[KathTheDragon]

How about the 52% who voted to leave?

What, the 26-ish% of people who're somehow allowed to dictate a future the other 74-ish% never asked for? The referendum was advisory, the government should have simply investigated what Brexit would require, figure out the options, and then ask the people what they wanted, instead of marching on with Article 50 with not even an idea of a plan.

[Moose-tache]

Geez, it's like you people have never heard of voting before. Yes, only 37.5% of registered voters chose Leave. But only 24.5% of registered voters chose the Conservatives in 2015, and they still got a majority government. These are things that happen when you have elections on things. As for the referendum being non-binding, that's entirely beside the point. Cameron made it clear, in writing, that the government would abide by the result. Besides, once you've got the result you can't say just kidding once your side (remember Cameron was a Remainer) loses, especially when the referendum was a campaign promise to quiet Leave agitation. It was, practically and politically speaking, not something any Conservative government could turn back on. If the referendum had been on something non-stupid like protecting children from lead poisoning we wouldn't be sitting here arguing that "only 42% of live humans in Britain voted against poison!" We all wish Cameron hadn't called a referendum on something the voters couldn't have a coherent picture of. But he did. We all wish your Nan had bothered to google Nigel Farage's lies about the NHS. But she didn't. We all wish the referendum could have been treated as a suggestion. But that ship had left the harbour before the votes were even counted. We ended up with a de-facto binding resolution for the government to deliver an undefined result that turned out to be impossible. Thanks Cameron. If only 24.5% of the voters hadn't chosen you we wouldn't be in this mess.

[KathTheDragon]

But only 24.5% of registered voters chose the Conservatives in 2015, and they still got a majority government.

And this is an even worse failing of our electoral system. Nobody's praised FPTP while decrying the referendum.

[Raphael]

I guess Moose-tache's point is that it doesn't really make sense to always, after a lost election or referendum, claim that the other side really lost by counting all the people who didn't vote as a part of one's own side.

[alice]

Boris is apparently "furious" because he's managed to miss the message from the EU since the very beginning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-51345055

Apparently he sees EU messaging that only a basic deal can be done within one year, and that free access with no barriers to the single market is dependent on how integrated the UK wants to remain with the regulatory infrastructure, as some kind of betrayal. If this isn't just posturing from the mop-headed buffoon, I'm genuinely puzzled how this is a surprise. I would have thought that the idea that the EU will accept a zero-checks trade deal on the basis of "regulatory equivalence", that favourite phrase of the ERG, was long dead by now.

The blame game for the 2021 recession has already started.

Of course, anything other than the EU giving the UK everything the UK asks for is going to be seen a a betrayal.

[Richard W]

They don't care that she came here legally, that she's lived her for more than a decade, is married to a British person, or is the mother to a British citizen.

Many immigrants with no deep connection could claim all that.

Change 'British' to 'English' and you've got a point.

And should said child, heaven forbid, set up a successful heroin-importing business, would not said child be at risk of deportation?

EDIT: I should say that I work in a very international business, and I know from colleagues that it's not just my wife. And it's not even just EU citizens I work with: the guy who sits next to me at work was born in the UK but is from an Arabic family, and he's seen a big uptick in racist abuse and threats since the referendum result as well. Apparently you're not British enough, even with a British passport, if you're brown and bearded.

Seeing that a significant part of the vote was against the presence of Romanians, I'm afraid it's hardly surprising.

What is surprising is the high number of continentals who favoured or even voted for Brexit.

[chris_notts]

Many immigrants with no deep connection could claim all that.

Change 'British' to 'English' and you've got a point.

This is the kind of petty xenophobia we're talking about. A British citizen is a citizen, regardless of whether they're "English" or not or even whether they were born here. It is, and should be, a basic principle that citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, including protection from harrassment. I am, in fact, English, but I don't believe that somehow gives me or my child more rights than non-English citizens.

And should said child, heaven forbid, set up a successful heroin-importing business, would not said child be at risk of deportation?

No clue what on earth you're talking about. My son is British by birth even though his mother is not, and (a) I find the suggestion he might start a drug empire a bit offensive, and (b) he would not be subject to deportation even if he did because (c) he currently has no other nationality and (d) even if he did, I believe the British government is currently only pursuing its discriminatory stripping of nationality from dual nationals for terrorism related offenses.

What I take away from your suggestion is that you regard my son, whose father is British, as having a lesser claim to citizenship in his nation of birth than yourself. And I absolutely refute that.

[Richard W]

Many immigrants with no deep connection could claim all that.

Change 'British' to 'English' and you've got a point.

This is the kind of petty xenophobia we're talking about. A British citizen is a citizen, regardless of whether they're "English" or not or even whether they were born here. It is, and should be, a basic principle that citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, including protection from harrassment. I am, in fact, English, but I don't believe that somehow gives me or my child more rights than non-English citizens.

Unfortunately, British citizenship seems to have become a superior immigration status. There seem to be a lot of people naturalising not for love of Britain, but for fear of British governments.

And surely you have heard of the rural attitude that it took generations for a family to cease to be newcomers.

The rights to preservation and transmission of nationality have long depended on how one acquired nationality.

And should said child, heaven forbid, set up a successful heroin-importing business, would not said child be at risk of deportation?

No clue what on earth you're talking about. My son is British by birth even though his mother is not, and (a) I find the suggestion he might start a drug empire a bit offensive, and (b) he would not be subject to deportation even if he did because (c) he currently has no other nationality and (d) even if he did, I believe the British government is currently only pursuing its discriminatory stripping of nationality from dual nationals for terrorism related offenses.

Re (d): Members of grooming gangs have been stripped of British citizenship for engaging in 'serious organised crime'. There was a statement that consideration was given to stripping Rolf Harris, whose father was born in the UK, of British nationality, though he may have been protected by judges going by the assurances given in parliament rather than the literal text of the law. People born British in the UK have been stripped of nationality for involvement with terrorist groups.

Re (c): It sounds as though your son's lost his mother's nationality. Not many EU countries automatically deprive minors of nationality, though it seems that the Netherlands and Slovakia do.

Re (a): It seems the likeliest serious organised crime to get sucked into.

What I take away from your suggestion is that you regard my son, whose father is British, as having a lesser claim to citizenship in his nation of birth than yourself. And I absolutely refute that.

The suggestion is refuted by your son's loss of his mother's citizenship. Having assured my father that my daughter was a first class British citizen, I was deeply offended when I discovered that she had later lost the unconditional right to remain British. In her case, actually ridding herself of the other nationality is reported to be very difficult - renunciations are reportedly not actually ratified, and now appear to be contrary to the constitution.

But indeed, those born from the 1st January 1983 onwards have an ever weakening claim to the citizenship of their country of birth. To prove she's British, my daughter needs either evidence of her parents' marriage or evidence of her mother's immigration status. The chain of evidence is going to get ever weaker over the generations, until people depend on a recent ancestor who became British. Evidence of Britishness is liable to be rechecked when passports are renewed - the Passport Office keeps deciding that its earlier checks weren't thorough enough.

[alice]

How about people who weren't born in Britain but have British citizenship, like me?

[Frislander]

Ah yes, I was wondering where the old-style ZBB flamewars had gone.

Many immigrants with no deep connection could claim all that.

Change 'British' to 'English' and you've got a point.

This is the kind of petty xenophobia we're talking about. A British citizen is a citizen, regardless of whether they're "English" or not or even whether they were born here. It is, and should be, a basic principle that citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, including protection from harrassment. I am, in fact, English, but I don't believe that somehow gives me or my child more rights than non-English citizens.

Unfortunately, British citizenship seems to have become a superior immigration status. There seem to be a lot of people naturalising not for love of Britain, but for fear of British governments.

And your point is? Are you suggesting that we should interrogate every candidate for naturlisation in order to assess whether they are naturalising for the "right" reasons or not? And who gets to decide what those motivations should be?

And surely you have heard of the rural attitude that it took generations for a family to cease to be newcomers.

Well while that might just about be feasible for a small community (and more to the point on that scale I wouldn't consider this an inherently bad thing), but on a national level it quickly becomes unworkable, and again quickly becomes a problem of who gets to define - how many generations must one wait before citizenship becomes available? Seems to me if you don't allow children of people born outside the UK to be British citizens then that's an easy way of creating a stateless social underclass, something which only serves to benefit the richest looking for slave labour and nobody else.

And should said child, heaven forbid, set up a successful heroin-importing business, would not said child be at risk of deportation?

No clue what on earth you're talking about. My son is British by birth even though his mother is not, and (a) I find the suggestion he might start a drug empire a bit offensive, and (b) he would not be subject to deportation even if he did because (c) he currently has no other nationality and (d) even if he did, I believe the British government is currently only pursuing its discriminatory stripping of nationality from dual nationals for terrorism related offenses.

Re (d): Members of grooming gangs have been stripped of British citizenship for engaging in 'serious organised crime'. There was a statement that consideration was given to stripping Rolf Harris, whose father was born in the UK, of British nationality, though he may have been protected by judges going by the assurances given in parliament rather than the literal text of the law. People born British in the UK have been stripped of nationality for involvement with terrorist groups.

Re (c): It sounds as though your son's lost his mother's nationality. Not many EU countries automatically deprive minors of nationality, though it seems that the Netherlands and Slovakia do.

Re (a): It seems the likeliest serious organised crime to get sucked into.

Again, see above the point about rendering people stateless, which is basically what would happen in this case, which if what "the people" wanted was reduced immigration and the removal of foreigners doesn't help at all, and if anything only makes things worse.

[Linguoboy]

And surely you have heard of the rural attitude that it took generations for a family to cease to be newcomers.

There's reasons why this is a "rural attitude" and something most people have only heard about rather than experienced.

[Richard W]

Ah yes, I was wondering where the old-style ZBB flamewars had gone.

This is the kind of petty xenophobia we're talking about. A British citizen is a citizen, regardless of whether they're "English" or not or even whether they were born here. It is, and should be, a basic principle that citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, including protection from harrassment. I am, in fact, English, but I don't believe that somehow gives me or my child more rights than non-English citizens.

Unfortunately, British citizenship seems to have become a superior immigration status. There seem to be a lot of people naturalising not for love of Britain, but for fear of British governments.

And your point is? Are you suggesting that we should interrogate every candidate for naturlisation in order to assess whether they are naturalising for the "right" reasons or not? And who gets to decide what those motivations should be?

It shouldn't be necessary for immigrants to naturalise. If immigrants are 'settled' here, then their children born in the UK are automatically British citizens, and one would hope that they would grow up as 'one of us'. Unfortunately, if children are born before their parents become 'settled', they have to be registered as British, and the Home Office has been price gouging (200% mark-up) on the charge for registration. The courts have declared that this is wrong, but the Home Office is appealing the decision.

The point is that becoming a British citizen does not generate the feeling that one is a fellow Briton.

Seems to me if you don't allow children of people born outside the UK to be British citizens then that's an easy way of creating a stateless social underclass, something which only serves to benefit the richest looking for slave labour and nobody else.

We let their children born here be automatically British or have a right to be registered as British once the parents become 'settled'. However, becoming 'settled' usually takes 5 years.

Re (d): Members of grooming gangs have been stripped of British citizenship for engaging in 'serious organised crime'. There was a statement that consideration was given to stripping Rolf Harris, whose father was born in the UK, of British nationality, though he may have been protected by judges going by the assurances given in parliament rather than the literal text of the law.

Again, see above the point about rendering people stateless, which is basically what would happen in this case, which if what "the people" wanted was reduced immigration and the removal of foreigners doesn't help at all, and if anything only makes things worse.

The members of the grooming gangs will remain Pakistani, and Rolf Harris would remain Australian. Deportation on release from prison is the expected outcome. (So far as I am aware, Rolf Harris has remained British.)

[Richard W]

How about people who weren't born in Britain but have British citizenship, like me?

If you're British by descent, then you're already subject to the limitation that your children born outside the UK (and associated bits and bobs) won't automatically derive British citizenship from you. If you're British by birth because of a parent being in crown service, you need to hang on to that evidence of crown service.

If you're British by registration, that's usually the strongest form of British citizenship there is for youngsters - but hang on to that certificate. (There is a weaker form, being British by descent by registration.)

If you're British by naturalisation, that's a strong form of citizenship, provided you aren't suspected of extreme disloyalty. Again, hang on to that certificate - I'm not sure a later generation can get a replacement.

[Travis B.]

As an American, British citizenship/nationality law seems so baroque and unjust. I am used to it being here in the US that anyone born on American soil who is not A) the child of a foreign diplomat or B) the child of a foreign occupier is an American citizen, no ands or buts.

(There was a number of cases of the gov't refusing to give passports to citizens born along certain parts of the southern border of the US due to fears that people were being brought across and then having their births being falsely registered in the US, but they stopped doing this a while back - but then recently Trump brought that back... Fucking bastard.)

[Moose-tache]

As an American, British citizenship/nationality law seems so baroque and unjust. I am used to it being here in the US that anyone born on American soil who is not A) the child of a foreign diplomat or B) the child of a foreign occupier is an American citizen, no ands or buts.

This is called Jus Soli, and it's common in the western hemisphere because it was a la mode in the 19th century when those countries codified their citizenship laws. European nationality laws are mostly from the 20th century and follow a different pattern, Jus Sanguinis. There's nothing "unjust" about it, and it's certainly no more dehumanizing or baroque than the American system (we also have complicated ands and/or buts for people born to one American parent or born in the Panama Canal Zone, etc., and ask an American Samoan sometime what their citizen status is).

[Travis B.]

As an American, British citizenship/nationality law seems so baroque and unjust. I am used to it being here in the US that anyone born on American soil who is not A) the child of a foreign diplomat or B) the child of a foreign occupier is an American citizen, no ands or buts.

This is called Jus Soli, and it's common in the western hemisphere because it was a la mode in the 19th century when those countries codified their citizenship laws. European nationality laws are mostly from the 20th century and follow a different pattern, Jus Sanguinis. There's nothing "unjust" about it, and it's certainly no more dehumanizing or baroque than the American system (we also have complicated ands and/or buts for people born to one American parent or born in the Panama Canal Zone, etc., and ask an American Samoan sometime what their citizen status is).

British citizenship/nationality law, from what I have read, seems more baroque and complex than, say, a prototypical jus sanguinis system. That said, jus sanguinis seems far more likely to result in one being born into a country which one is not a citizen in, and thus more likely to be deported to a country one has never been to, and which one does not speak the language of, and thus for that reason is more unjust than jus soli to me.

[Moose-tache]

That said, jus sanguinis seems far more likely to result in one being born into a country which one is not a citizen in, and thus more likely to be deported to a country one has never been to, and which one does not speak the language of...

[citation needed]
Seriously, though, we don't have to guess based on our feelings of what might happen. We have NUMBERS!
The USA has 4.9 times as many people as the UK, but deports 10.4 times as many people. Late last year ICE was ordered to reopen 350,000 closed appeals against deportation. That small chunk alone is more than six years worth of UK deportations. Meanwhile, what happens in the UK when Amber Rudd put her foot in her mouth about the Windrush generation? She had to resign for jeopardizing the residence status of people who have no legal documentation to prove they are eligible to live in the UK. Do you really think the UK is doing a worse job of preventing culturally British people from being deported? Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli are almost meaningless on their own. They're just centuries-old legal principles. What matters is all the details of how nationality law is applied.

[Richard W]

British citizenship/nationality law, from what I have read, seems more baroque and complex than, say, a prototypical jus sanguinis system.

That's because it's jus soli with exceptions:

1) Let the first generation born overseas be British, with some indecision on how long Britishness can be preserved.

2) Don't allow the children of people who were just passing through be British.

What is missing, as may soon* become apparent, is something like 'double jus soli', whereby the second generation born in the UK is British, no questions asked. Instead we are lurching to a database system, without remembering that the database must be carefully preserved.

*We're now starting the third generation born since the dropping of simple jus soli - passport applications will have to start asking where great-grandparents were born.

[Travis B.]

That said, jus sanguinis seems far more likely to result in one being born into a country which one is not a citizen in, and thus more likely to be deported to a country one has never been to, and which one does not speak the language of...

[citation needed]
Seriously, though, we don't have to guess based on our feelings of what might happen. We have NUMBERS!
The USA has 4.9 times as many people as the UK, but deports 10.4 times as many people. Late last year ICE was ordered to reopen 350,000 closed appeals against deportation. That small chunk alone is more than six years worth of UK deportations. Meanwhile, what happens in the UK when Amber Rudd put her foot in her mouth about the Windrush generation? She had to resign for jeopardizing the residence status of people who have no legal documentation to prove they are eligible to live in the UK. Do you really think the UK is doing a worse job of preventing culturally British people from being deported? Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli are almost meaningless on their own. They're just centuries-old legal principles. What matters is all the details of how nationality law is applied.

Well that is because the people running things in the US right now are obsessed with deporting as many people as possible. They are even trying to reverse naturalizations on the flimsiest of excuses (e.g. I remember reading about how one person was going to be denaturalized because they spelled their name one way in one document and another way in another document, despite the fact that no distinction was made between the two in Nastaliq...).