CONFIDENTIAL
out of the question because it is inconsistent with the shift from
a unitary to a multiple citizenship. But we must convince the
territories that their misgivings have been fully taken into account and that everything possible has been done to make the
change in nomenclature as small as possible and to retain a link
with the United Kingdom. This is important in the context of our
relations with Argentina over the Falklands, Guatemala over Belize,
Spain over Gibraltar and China over Hong Kong. In all these territories we need to retain the confidence of the populations.
ARGUMENT REFUTATION OF HOME OFFICE DOUBTS
7.
The retention of the title 'British Subject' would not
frustrate the aims of the new legislation in the UK. To retain it
in the sense advocated does not conflict with the decision to
abandon it in its present sense as a synonym for Commonwealth
Citizen. The term 'British Subject' became virtually meaningless in its present sense with the arrival of Republics in the
Commonwealth. But in the more restricted sense advocated, it would
restore its meaning to something much closer to its one-time
meaning of a subject of the Sovereign
<
but not the Sovereign as
Head of State of another Commonwealth country. Many people still
have a strong sense of that relationship.
8.
Betention of 'British Subject' for these groups would not
nullify the distinction between them which their separate citizenship categories are designed to make. At present all the
three groups share the common status and title 'British Subject:
Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'. There could be no
doubt of the distinction that was being drawn between them and
between their differing rights of abode and immigration if in
future they were called, for example, 'British Subject: UK Citizen',
'British Subject: Citizen of the British Dependent Territories' and
'British Subject: British Overseas Citizen'.
CONFIDENTIAL
/Fall-back;