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

[Anothernamechange3]

Or really, who can I vote for? I don’t want to vote Tory, especially after today’s revelations. I also don’t feel happy voting Labour or Green, for reasons often discussed on this board. Is there a party you’d feel happy to vote to be in power if you had a chance to, say, tomorrow? Feeling pretty despondent

That raises some pretty huge massive important questions...

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

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?

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.

@FlyingOink

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.

It does often seem disingenuous. But having undergone a whole day of woke training in the workplace recently, I am feeling very aware of how many people just believe what they are told to believe. And there can be this sort of blindness to real local circumstances - there can be issues in some places with dual nationality for Jewish people so that is assumed to be an issue across the board.

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.

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.

@CheeseMmmm

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.

It's not that it's rare.

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.

@CheeseMmmm

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.

And you feel that this will impact on them in terms of things like being accused of terrorism? It seems that they would lose British passports but keep Irish ones, do you think that is problematic in such cases?

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.

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.

Apologies again for being really unclear.

Hope that makes more sense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
That's a fair point but technically the secondary nationality could have been acquired later in life anyway, with the individual having been born British.

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.
Well I can't really respond to that, someone you know is accused of terrorism and you disagree - I have no details and no way to form an opinion so that information is of no use to me.
I'm not naive enough to assume the government is always pleasantly neutral and/or doesn't make mistakes. But the idea that faking a conviction for terrorism or espionage is an easy way to remove someone from the UK is patent nonsense. It would be incredibly laborious.
We can't even deport paedophiles and murderers at the end of their sentences easily, and I'm referring to foreign nationals with no UK citizenship at all. What makes you think the UK government would suddenly pull out all the stops to frame individuals who happened to have dual nationality?
Specifically, for some unknown reason, Irish people and British people who are Jewish?

You don't think the govt having this power could cause any problems, that in theory they could remove from NI?

The theoretical is not possible?

That's really reassuring.

Given everything I don't think having a sudden concern about this is ' nonsense'.

You have reassured me it is not even a theoretical possibility though so that's very reassuring.

I specifically said the idea that Jewish people would be targeted was a strange thing to jump to, the govt have groups that are obvious they would target.

Northern Ireland not all anyone with an Irish passport on mainland! Northern Ireland.

It's not possible there so that's really good.

What if it was something not to do with sectarianism though?

That would mean not for that either?

CheeseMmmm what are you on about?

An Irish person has the right to live in the UK, to vote in the UK, and to travel between the UK and Ireland. There are numerous agreements in place. There is no need for a British passport.

Removing a British passport from someone who previously had both an Irish and a British one would not prevent that person from travelling to, living in, working in, voting in, the UK.

You can't exile someone from NI to ROI because that person can just walk across the border again quite legally. They could get on a boat or a plane to the UK mainland.

Removing a British passport would be largely symbolic.

The government has been able to do this since just after the 7/7/2005 bombings. The main change in this bill is about being able to do it to people who are incommunicado, like off fighting for ISIS somewhere in the Middle East. The Home Office said: “British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. The nationality and borders bill will amend the law so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person.”

There are some online quotes from handwringers who think this makes their own citizenship second rate, as Lobster alluded to. But dual nationality is in itself a privilege - I have the ability to claim a second passport and choose not to, for example. But am I in danger of being deported? No, because I'm not a spy or a terrorist. In fact, it's quite easy not to be a spy or a terrorist. The vast majority of us "foreign types" manage it quite easily.

I think we're coming at this from totally different angles and doubt middle ground.

I suddenly thought, what about NI?
Given the history.
Hoping for peace. Obviously. No way of predicting my predicting the future though.
The actions of mainland (essentially England).

I raised as came to mind and made me worry. I don't know all the treaties, NI laws around terrorism, clauses and agreements etc.

I thought IF this includes NI then it impacts one group way more than everyone else. Obviously.
And even this law being applicable feels like a potential problem.

I think your views are-

In practice removing to Ireland would be unenforceable so kind of not a problem.

It's for terrorists, those who radicalise etc who are a danger to UK, and only if dual passport held can happen.

Thinking govt would fit up people in NI is just bizarre, they doing it because Isis etc.

Sorry that was precis hope that's more or less ok?

Just two completely different approaches.

Maybe it's,

You thinking of present
Me thinking of past and future

Dunno.