with Britain.
However, although they are explaining
your preference to the Home Office, Ministers do not believe that it would be practicable to get
parliamentary agreement to a clause on these lines. The reasons have already been explained in FCO Telegram No 483 of 21 May.
3. Briefly, they are of two kinds:
Thus,
a) The imprecision of the concept of British Nationality in international law. There is no consensus among governments on its meaning. although HMG fully accepts that for the purposes of protection and representation abroad, persons covered by the Bill are British Nationals, it would not be possible to translate this into domestic legislation.
b) The danger of encouraging misunderstanding on the right of abode of the various categories under the Bill, including not only CBDT but also British Overseas Citizens andothers. Given the basic aims of the Bill, to introduce the concept of 'British National' into the legislation at this stage would cause confusion and would arguse opposition in
Parliament.
4. However FCO Ministers/believe that a possible- alternative would be to introduce an additional clause declaring that CBDTS, while forming a definitè citizenship category, could alternatively be described as British Dependent Territories citizens with a further optional variation of eg 'British (Hong Kong) Citizen' Such a designation could be used in passports or for other administrative purposes. It would of course be made clear that CBDTS were not being admitted to a branch of British, Citizenship.
/5.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN