| « Worst. Minister. EVER. | Irish Football Association Scoop Mutlicutlural Award in Dublin » |
EU Mythbuster: No. 5 - We're All Subjects
A possibly rather innocuous comment was made a few days ago at Unionist Lite but I've seen this incorrect claim used on Slugger O'Toole to bait unionist commenters on a number of occasions: something along the lines of "Sure you're all subjects up there, I'm much happier being a citizen... blah, blah."
Well, actually, no we're not. There did exist a class of person known as a British Subject and, while technically it still exists, for all intents and purposes it was abolished long ago.
Follow up:
A little more detail
Up until 1946, anyone born in a Commonwealth country (except the Free State) was a British Subject and this was their sole nationality status. Then in 1946 Canada enacted its own citizenship laws which led to a review in 1948 where the commonwealth collectively decided that each country would have its own citizenship but citizens would also share the common status of British subjects (AKA Commonwealth Citizens).
The idea was that practically all British subjects would acquire one or more of the new citizenships being created, with those who didn't becoming a "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
However India and Pakistan didn't award citizenship to everyone who was born in those countries, so Britain refused to include those countries in the section of the Act that enacted the above, meaning that subjects from India or Pakistan who didn't qualify for citizenship of India or Pakistan remained British subjects without citizenship. Also, because the Free State was about to leave the Commonwealth, special provision was made to allow British Subjects from there to continue to hold British Subject status if they so wished (This applies only to those born before 1949).
Since 1983, the term British Subject doesn't apply to Commonwealth Citizens, which is now their official title. The only class of people who remain British Subjects are those British Subjects without citizenship mentioned above. British Citizens are not subjects. In fact, only those who are British Subjects by virtue of being born in the Free State before 1949 who apply for British Citizenship can be both subjects and citizens - anyone else loses their British Subject status when they apply for any citizenship. They also cannot transmit the status of British Subject to their children.
All information taken from Wikipedia entries:
British nationality
British subject
History of British nationality law
Trackback address for this post
5 comments
–noun
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
sub·ject /n., adj. ˈsʌbdʒɪkt; v. səbˈdʒɛkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
7. a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign.
They actually aren't incompatible. I think the opposite of "subject" is more like "freeman". You remain, in a real sense, a subject. Power in the UK passes from God to Monarch to Parliament to you. All your rights are by gift of Parliament.
Yes you have a say in who goes to Parliament (well, half of it), and have an indirect say in those things. But there is no notion of popular sovereignty - Parliament can repeal any law and strip you of any right, even fundamental ones.
So, no, you are a subject. Think it doesn't matter? Ask why the UK can get away stopping an EU referendum in case the plebs get what they want, and why the Republic must have one.
Any legislature in the world can do that, its members are (if they remain a democracy) however accountable to the voters at the next election. You could argue that minus a constitution, the UK parliament's power to infringe on our fundamental rights is greater, but in practice (as can be seen with the Bush administrations' various human rights abuses over the last 5 years or so) a constitution may be interpreted in many ways depending on the political complexion of the governnment and judiciary and is not always the iron-cast guarantee that it is made out to be.
In fact, thinking about it, if there is a parliament which can strip away our fundamental rights without a care regarding public opinion,then it is the one based in Brussels not Westminster.
So, no, you are a subject. Think it doesn't matter? Ask why the UK can get away stopping an EU referendum in case the plebs get what they want, and why the Republic must have one
I think the ROI is on its own in this one, Germany, France, Spain etc are all in the same boat as the Uk in denying the right of their citizens to vote on the new constitution/treaty, it's a not proof either way of our "subject"-status.
No, they can't. Attempting to violate the Constitution in the US or the Republic will result in the law being struck down. And as soon as it is struck down, it ceases to be. In the UK it is declared incompatible or other such nonsense and it remains in place until Parliament does something about it.
It's a fundamental difference.
"You could argue that minus a constitution, the UK parliament's power to infringe on our fundamental rights is greater, but in practice (as can be seen with the Bush administrations' various human rights abuses over the last 5 years or so)"
The US's main human rights abuses haven't been directed at it's own citizens in the main. Some things they've done have infringed on the Constitution -- warrantless wiretapping, for example, but there is huge controversy over these precisely because of the Constitution. In fact I would go so far to say that any time the US has fucked up - over slavery, or Civil Rights, say, it's the power and eloquence of their Constitution that brings them back and forces them to correct it.
"a constitution may be interpreted in many ways depending on the political complexion of the governnment and judiciary and is not always the iron-cast guarantee that it is made out to be."
No guarantee is cast iron against tyrannical government. But it makes life a lot harder for them.
"In fact, thinking about it, if there is a parliament which can strip away our fundamental rights without a care regarding public opinion,then it is the one based in Brussels not Westminster."
Oh, I agree that the EU could be made much more democratic; but again the difference between Ireland and the UK is that every single amending EU treaty has been ratified by the Irish people, and they could withdraw their consent if they amended the Constitution in a referendum.
"I think the ROI is on its own in this one, Germany, France, Spain etc are all in the same boat as the Uk in denying the right of their citizens to vote on the new constitution/treaty, it's a not proof either way of our "subject"-status."
I would suggest those countries are in need of burnishing their Republican credentials, and it illustrates one of the more pleasing aspects of the Republic. The argument made elsewhere, btw, would be that it doesn't change the Constitution, and this does not require the consent of the people rather than Parliament is sovereign, and you can lump it anyway.
Regardless the point stands: lots of Communist countries had "Democratic" in the title, and simply changing the name is not enough to change the deeper issue.
Also, one can surely consider oneself to be British and yet be in favour of a UK republic, so surely there must be some Unionists in favour of such an arrangement, and therefore prefer the title of citizen to subject.
Actually anyone born in the "Free" State before 1948/9 WAS (and still is) entitled to British nationality If and when they choose to avail of it. And there is a campaign to extend that right to those of us born after that date.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
