- 6 -
however, have already ceased, or are ceasing, to use the term "British subject". That expression is preserved only in the laws of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (apart from Southern Rhodesia, where the Legislative Assembly in Salisbury abolished or purported to abolish it by the Citizenship of Rhodesia Act 1970). Even in those countries where it is maintained in law; there have been objections to its use in practice. In 1967 the Australian Goverment found it necessary to cease to issue Australian passports with the words "British subjects" on the cover, since that practice had given rise to the misleading impression that bearers had the right to enter the United Kingdom. In Canada there have been objections to the use of the term "British subject", not only from Canadians of French ancestry but also from Canadian Indians. The use of the expression "Commonwealth citizen" is also diminishing, and although the term is less contentious and misleading, it is employed in slightly different senses in different Commonwealth countries.
4.
If these terms are abolished, special arrangements will have to be made to ensure that we do not impose statelessness on the British subjects without primary status referred to on Page (3) above. Such persons should automatically become "nationals of the United Hingdor", on the date that the relevant enactment takes effect, if they have no other nationality.
VI
NATIONALITY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
Our new nationality law must define the nationals of this country that is, all the people on whose behalf the Crown may act on the international plane. It should designate them by a brief and accurate expression. A suitable tenn would be "United Kingdom Nationals".
There is, of course, a distinction between nationality and citizenship. Nationality denotes an individual's status for the purpose of intemational affairs, whereas citizenship denotes his status with respect to domestic affairs and particularly with respect to the rights and duties that the citizen and the state owe each other. The two generally coincide, but they do not always do so. It is possible to be a national of the United States of America without being a citizen of that country.
It is therefore proposed that a distinction should be drawn between nationals and citizens of the United Kingdom. The latter expression would be confined to those who are associated with the United Kingdom itself. Since the Crown could extend diplomatic protection to any citizen of the United Kingdom', any such citizen would also be a United Kingdom national but not every such national would be a citizen. For nationality of the United Kingdom would also embrace those who at present are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by association with existing of former colonies, or are British subjects without citizenship or British protected persons. To this there would be one exception. In conformity with its policy of reducing the incidence of plural nationality, the enactment creating the status of "national of the United Kingdom" would normally withhold it from any person who has a citizenship other than that of the United Kingdom.
Nationality of the United Kingdom would not normally be transmissible.
A parent and child might both have that nationality,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.