On the same topic of how the current government’s (and, to be fair, past governments’) approaches to citizenship have gone badly and fundamentally wrong, see this piece by Sonia Spencer in @prospect_uk. prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/how-y…
The Home Office’s idea that citizenship is a “privilege” that can be removed - or bought - in the same way as membership of a golf club is a category mistake: it purports to turn a matter of identity and belonging into a contractual relationship.
The same error underlies the ludicrous fees charged to those applying for British citizenship: British citizenship should not be something you can get only if you have the (significant amount of) money, but a recognition of commitment, belonging, and identity.
(Footnote - the UK investor visa buys long-term residency rather than citizenship as such: but the conversion is fairly straightforward, and neither should be for sale.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Important point on government record-keeping. Government by WhatsApp is unaccountable government, vulnerable to corruption. opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocra…
At the moment, the Ministerial Code says nothing on the topic: though the danger is recognised in the guidance on face-to-face meetings, and guidance given.
I don’t often agree with @danielmgmoylan: but putting aside partisan swipes, and the first couple of minutes on general philosophy of immigration law, he then makes a good conservative case against the ability of governments to remove nationality.
It comes from a Tory perspective that isn’t mine: but ends up in much the same place. And I absolutely agree that citizenship isn’t just a travel document, or a contract that can be torn up by either side at will.
I’d add (he may or may not agree with me) that the fact that the provision bites on those with family or personal connections with other countries (eg Jews or Northern Irish entitled to another country’s citizenship: those with a foreign born parent) is a further deep iniquity.
A few comments on the current government’s consultation document on “A Modern Bill of Rights”.
First, the title “Modern Bill of Rights”. It hints at a powerful statement of what our fundamental rights should be.
In reality, this “Modern Bill of Rights” is little more than a cutting back of the existing Human Rights Act. No consideration of any additional rights apart from a tepid nod to the idea of a right to jury trial.
This is poor stuff. Judicial reviews don’t get anywhere (they don’t get permission) if the only basis for them is disagreement with government policy. GLP cases have had success because they have identified cases where government has breached the law.
It is important to make that point because sloppy reporting of that kind feeds into a narrative that judicial review is just politics by other means.
Really important point by @PJTheEconomist. Many discussions of devolution focus on the *legal* powers of devolved bodies (in 🏴, 🏴 or English mayors). But their *fiscal* powers are equally critical: without the ability to raise their own taxes they are constantly supplicants.
Moreover, without their own fiscal autonomy, accountability for decisions is confused and poor.
Central government uses its purse strings as a whip, but hopes to evade responsibility for the consequences (see the current TfL drama) - and devolved government evades responsibility for its decisions by blaming Westminster parsimony.
“Binning it” isn’t actually a bad idea - and that is so even if you believe that it’s likely that substantial improvement in regulation is possible be replacing carried-over EU law with new U.K. drafted rules.
The review had two strands. One was to go through all areas of retained EU law to suggest replacements.