CONFIDENTIAL
obligation. When Mr Luce in Committee yesterday said that the people of the dependencies would remain UK nationals in the limited international law sense mentioned above he was challenged that he should not use the term unless we would accept the fuller obligation to receive nationals in the UK ultimately (my recollection in advance of Hangard). This is the danger of using terms with no precise meaning.
5. Civis Britannicus is dead. The common status lingers on in name only and the Bill is to end even that. I know of no thoughts of retaining the concept for a more restricted circle (eg the 3 citizenships and the special categories). It cannot be in the UK's interest to use any titles that suggest otherwise. This can be explained to Hong Kong reasonably without shattering all their illusions. The problem is that the Unofficials do not want to know. But their aims in this respect are and always have been totally opposed to those of the UK and no compromise is possible.
6. I am glad that the Governor dismisses the idea of an administrative solution by a title in passports but not in the Bill. The policy and practical arguments against a title in passport are equally as strong. Politically it could be dangerous for the Government to try to introduce a change in this way for it would soon become known what was afoot.
7. We have found difficulting in understanding why anyone can doubt that a title 'Citizen of the British Dependent Territories' needs a 'British' prefix to show that it is a status in our nationality law; but if it would help to put the word 'British' first I would see no objection to expressing the status in passports in the form 'British Dependent Territories Citizen'.
29 April 1981
CONFIDENTIAL
топи
W Jones
Nationality and Treaty Department
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.