If a general election was called, who would you vote for?

Oink you're sure there are agreements in place to meet this bill could not result in the removal of anyone in NI to Ireland if the situation were to (God forbid) deteriorate?

That would require a hard border, the removal of the Good Friday Agreement and a suspension of the Common Travel Area, plus a reversal of all the agreements that make being an Irish citizen in the UK fairly similar to being a British citizen in the UK.

It would require a raft of additional legislation and a huge amount of financial investment. Borders don't police themselves you know. Now stop talking utter nonsense.

Oink you're sure there are agreements in place to meet this bill could not result in the removal of anyone in NI to Ireland if the situation were to (God forbid) deteriorate?

The idea that govt would not act in ways to exploit this, if they wanted to and could. Surely that's rather optimistic?

And surely that the theoretical ability in itself given the history is a pretty serious potential issue?

I don't understand your confidence in the govt tbh.

You're sure it doesn't apply? I think it would be a good idea to state it, wouldn't do any harm would it.

And having seen a teenager radicalized by his parents called terrorists rather than insurgents or enemy combatants, so they could be allowed to rot indefinitely in an off-shore jail cell, I would never assume that a bill like this is not going to be misused.

If it's well written, that should not happen, or it would be mitigated against at least, but saying concerns is a result of being a crazy crack smoker also seems a little extreme.

Someone who wanted to ague that should be able to give some examples of how the category of crimes against the state might be manipulated in order to use it in such a way, yes. But a lot of people don't really take their thinking that far, they make the suggestion and then leave it there.

Lots of people just don't think citizenship should ever be revoked, unless it;s gained fraudulently, because they think the nature of citizenship is that it is permanent, that to make it something anyone can be stripped of means it is not really naturalized citizenship at all but a kind of secondary tier. I'd not be surprised if that's the real view of many who claim it's antisemitic, but they hope that claim will gain them allies.

I suppose the most sensible interpretation, FlyingOink, would be that someone might think a law like this could be potentially leveraged to use against certain groups for reasons of bigotry. Especially if you could widen in people's minds the sense of what constitutes a crime against the state.
It's not about widening anything in anyone's mind. This is a provision to exclude people from the UK who hate this country and seek to harm or kill specifically because of their terrorist aims, where those people have another nationality and won't be left stateless.
It's already happened before so I assume this is a formalisation of the process.

There are plenty of examples where legislation intentionally or unwittingly leads to potential discrimination against a particular demographic. This is not one of those examples. It's an absolute nonsense.

Do you think the UK is going to fit up a bunch of Irish people (yes I know Guildford and Birmingham but bear with me) so their UK passports can be removed, when this will have little practical effect on their freedom of movement in the UK, seeing as the CTA exists?
Or likewise, the UK is going to accuse and arrest and convict a bunch of UK citizens who happen to be Jewish just in case they have dual Israeli nationality so we can pack them off there? What are you people smoking?

The original poster who suggested this bill was antisemitic has buggered off so who knows what her thinking was?

I suppose the most sensible interpretation, FlyingOink, would be that someone might think a law like this could be potentially leveraged to use against certain groups for reasons of bigotry. Especially if you could widen in people's minds the sense of what constitutes a crime against the state.

In the same way for example that the understanding of who is a terrorist vs who is a member of an insurgent group can be manipulated in order to allow states to give accused persons fewer rights in terms of trials or imprisonment.

Is that a problem here - I don't know, a lot would depend on how it was written. And I suspect the most likely people to have that happen to them, near term, would not be Jews, but Muslims, so I wonder why it's being suggested the former is the issue at hand.

But the form of the argument is not unusual, even in this forum. People often ask, does this law or practice disproportionately affect a certain group, and if it does, even if it's not actually aimed at that group, it's seen as problematic.

Also, someone with Irish and British dual nationality is among the least affected groups. An Irish passport still gets you into Britain due to the Common Travel Agreement. Irish citizens can vote in the UK and vice versa. Losing your bus pass would probably be more disruptive.

This is the most ridiculous argument.

If a new law was passed against child molesters who drink vodka, the emphasis wouldn't be on demographics that drink vodka. It'd be on child molesters. If a new law was passed against murderers with uncut beards, the emphasis would be on the murder bit.
Having dual nationality doesn't put anyone at risk under this bill. Unless you're a convicted terrorist or spy. FFS how much clearer can I be?

In this thread we've seen posters suggest British Jews and Irish people are somehow at risk from this bill. As if either group just couldn't help getting convicted of terrorist offences. "Oops! Accidentally became a terrorist and got convicted in court. Must have been all that Barry's Tea I was importing."
Absolute lunacy.

You don't consider it to be something that needs to be covered in the bill?

Why not? Even if think not necessary what harm would it do?

'And you feel that this will impact on them in terms of things like being accused of terrorism?'

The history is relevant here. Massively.

I would hope not but the possibility is obviously potentially inflammatory.

If God forbid the situation deteriorates.
Then I'd say all bets are off. And that is an obvious consideration, even if doesn't happen.
Because in theory it is clearly... Open to certain things.
And that in itself is not good.

'It seems that they would lose British passports but keep Irish ones, do you think that is problematic in such cases?'

Do you think it ISN'T?
I think you need to explain why that wouldn't be 'problematic' to put it mildly.

Apologies again for being really unclear.

Hope that makes more sense.

So.

In NI the citizenship/s held are generally related to republican/ loyalists. For obvious reasons.

Given that Irish only or dual with UK (that probably unlikely? Might look for numbers) will be held by republicans.

That feels like a potential minefield when it comes to this bill.

This ability in and of itself is surely a major ??? due to, well what I just said.

And that's why I said I couldn't find if NI mentioned in bill.

Spies are buggered no matter what anyway, no country admits to having them and if they get caught they are left high and dry. In a lot of cases they probably aren't going to be sent back, they will rot in a cell somewhere.

It's that for most people to have dual citizenship they need to have been born elsewhere and become naturalized, or their parents or perhaps grandparents were born elsewhere.

That applies to plenty of people, but not everyone of French descent, for example. I have French ancestors who had to flee leaving their property behind. No one is looking to offer me French citizenship.

However, theoretically anyone born Jewish can be a citizen of Israel, even if their ancestors haven't set food in the Middle East in a thousand years.

Or to put it another way, being a citizen of France is not inherently attached to having French ancestry, whereas being a citizen of Israel, from certain perspectives, is an inherent element of being Jewish. And for some people that is a perspective they like to push as the correct way of thinking.

The next point was when I thought about NI and the specific laws allowing NI citizens to hold Irish passport, UK passport, or both.

Given the history, the long term and still very much unresolved divisions that exist in certain areas.

The recent events of unrest, description from many sources included the that worst seen since troubles.

The years of friction (to put it mildly) around the maze prison. Till mid 2000s. Not ancient history.

Well known obv so will stop there.

But to me it really does come down to the identity politics model, because it is about looking, not at the effects of something like this on people in general. It's about the effects on specific names groups. And intent isn't relevant, or the reason it might potentially affect one group more. So maybe it would affect everyone with dual citizenship but if you can tie specific groups to that, suddenly there is a kind of leverage there.

My suspicion though is someone somewhere decided they wanted to be able to counter accusations that the LP is especially anti-Semitic, and so they jumped on this because it's about the Conservatives.

Ah sorry rereading I wasn't clear at all!

The mention of UK citizens with dual passports was in response to -

'The point is the have access to dual citizenship by virtue of being Jewish, which a lot of other people don't. Anyone who doesn't have dual citizenship can't have their British citizenship revoked under this bill.'

My point being that dual citizenship in the UK isn't at all rare. And I'd guess that dual Ireland/UK was the biggest group.

So dual citizenship is actually not at all uncommon in UK, with I'm guessing the largest dual citizenship being our closest neighbour.

Which in general on this topic, the immediate concern around targeting groups that govt are hostile to, and just being the bulk of the reporting.

I think Ireland could be overlooked even though huge group iyswim.

No obv I don't think the govt will target them, spies etc.

That raises some pretty huge massive important questions

Not really.
We're talking about convicted terrorists and spies. Not someone with an Irish mum. You do know that most people aren't terrorists or spies, right?

That raises some pretty huge massive important questions...

I can't find if the bill has anything about NI.

Also NI dual passports UK Ireland are available if wanted.

Or one or the other.

Meaning there is group in NI without UK passports.

Stacks of people with connections to Ireland - relatives etc- have dual passports.

Plus I remember loads UK passport holders applied for Irish passport etc with brexit.
They won't all have bothered but a huge amount of people are eligible.

Though, you know, I think people say stuff like that at times believing they are defending the oppressed
Mehhh.... No

That only works if you think that being prosecuted for terrorism is oppression. It was really a wild reading of the bill. And the UK allows dual nationality with pretty much everywhere, so I'm not sure you are correct in that British Jews are more likely to have dual nationality.

Basically if someone can be booted out for trying to kill us and who professes to hate us and/or commits espionage for a foreign country, then yeah, they absolutely should. If it wasn't for laws around statelessness there would be no focus on dual nationality. But if I could exile David Copeland (for example) to a prison ship in the mid-atlantic, I surely would.

I don't know. I think about this a lot.

For policies, particularly on protection of women's sex-based rights, I'm a typical Tory voter. And a Tory government is much financially better for my family (tax etc).

In terms of individual personalities, I cannot be one of the people voting for Boris Johnson or the incompetents he's chosen to surround himself with. They've broken the country and I hate them.

I respect and like Kier Starmer, and quite admire Angela Raynor (although she openly despises people from my background ) but Labour are captured by the 'woke' lobby and I'm uncomfortable voting for them because they'll bring in gender self-ID and throw away women's protections without understanding what they're doing.

Can't vote Green or Libdem for same reason as Labour.

So I guess if the Conservatives get a new leader, I might vote for them (unless it's Gove. Not voting for Gove).

Otherwise it's a pointless protest vote. Sigh.

Anyone who is most likely to get rid of the toxic Tories in my area

Though, you know, I think people say stuff like that at times believing they are defending the oppressed. They think if something could affect certain groups disproportionately, it is always therefor bigoted. It's the Ibram Kendi school of thought.