A hostiler environment

Every day seems to bring a new example of the Home Office's hostile environment. On Thursday came a tweet from one Charles Kriel: "An incredibly unwelcome entry to the UK today, as I was informed my 15 week old London born baby does not have the right to reside in the UK despite a Norwegian mother and father with Indefinite Leave. That’s not what anyone should expect when returning home".

According to gov.uk the child could be a British citizen from the status of at least one of his/her parents. It might be that different arrangements have been made for the child's citizenship, but right to reside seems more straightforward: "You have the right to reside if you’re a close relative of an EU, EEA [including Norway] or Swiss citizen. Close relatives [include] children". Are the new settled status arrangements for Brexit changing this qualification, because the existing web pages seem to solve Mr Kriel's problem?

Diane Dodds MEP

The same day a Democratic Unionist politician opened wide a subject that's been bubbling insistently under the Brexit debate for weeks now. The politician in question was Diane Dodds, one of Northern Ireland's three MEPs, and she warned that Brexit must not be "cynically exploited to seek serious and irreversible changes to UK citizenship laws which would set Northern Ireland adrift from Great Britain".

The question concerns citizenship for those born in Northern Ireland, and has been through social media campaigns, questions in the Commons and a judge's decision which set the Good Friday Agreement above UK law. And thereby, to coin a phrase, set Northern Ireland adrift from Great Britain.

The Good Friday Agreement proclaims "the British and Irish Governments... will... recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland".

Ms Dodds cites that same paragraph of the agreement (paragraph 1(vi) of the section on Constitutional Issues), but stresses particular words. She refers to people's "right to hold both British and Irish citizenship" and offers an interpretation: "this does not say British or Irish citizenship. Therefore most people born in Northern Ireland are entitled automatically to Irish citizenship, but this is in addition to, and not instead of, British citizenship". Which doesn't seem right.

The citizenship question is simple in the Republic of Ireland, which amended its nationality laws to reflect the position set out in the Good Friday Agreement, but complex in the UK, including Northern Ireland, because the UK amended nothing.


The right to one citizenship or the other, or both, was established as a birthright, so campaigner Emma DeSouza can state "I am an Irish national born in Northern Ireland, Irish by birth & Irish under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement", yet she has been informed by the UK government that she is "as a matter of fact a British citizen", and that to exercise the rights of an Irish citizen she will have to renounce the British citizenship she doesn't consider she has.

Ms DeSouza's case arose initially because she wanted to regularise her husband's status - Brexit is raising questions like this for millions of people - but other questions have come up, fed by the absence of any provision for this birthright in British law and the apparent ignorance and incompetence of ministers of the British government.

In a related enquiry, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Karen Bradley was asked "for what reason do the reciprocal voting rights of Irish citizens not cover referendums" and replied "The voting rights which will continue to be enjoyed by British and Irish citizens are reciprocal. British citizens may vote in local and parliamentary elections in Ireland but not Presidential elections or referendums. This reciprocal right is reflected in the voting rights of Irish citizens living in the United Kingdom", thereby appearing to confirm that the basis of the question is the case and has always been so.

Thus, though Irish citizens could vote in - say - the 2016 referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU (as could Maltese and Cypriot citizens resident in the UK, as citizens of a Commonwealth country, not as EU citizens), it is suggested that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland could not as a right vote in - say - a border poll on reunifying Ireland. That qualification would have to be written specifically into the bill establishing the referendum.

Other questions of this sort are blowing up, but for now let's just return to the tribunal Ms DeSouza and her husband asked to decide on their status. The judge stated: "under the terms of the Good Friday agreement people of Northern Ireland are in a unique position within the United Kingdom. The British and Irish governments recognised the birthright of all the people in Northern Ireland to identify themselves as Irish or British or both, as they may so choose." and went on: "The constitutional changes effected by the Good Friday Agreement with its annexed British-Irish Agreement, the latter amounting to an international treaty between sovereign governments supersede the British Nationality Act 1981 in so far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned. He or she is permitted to chose their nationality as a birthright. Nationality cannot therefore be imposed on them at birth."

I essayed a rather naive look at this subject in 2017, but with the Brexit "settled status" system being rolled out even in the absence of any final decision on withdrawing from the EU, and the Home Office showing every sign of building a new Windrush scandal in plain sight (there is no document which states that you have settled status; every employer, landlord, service provider etc will have to go online to discover whether you can live, work or receive healthcare etc in the UK) it seems inescapable that the complexity and cost of this shambles will continue to grow.

Letter to my MP - Avoiding the EU elections

Today, Philip Hammond was quoted as saying, "Clearly nobody wants to fight the European elections. It feels like a pointless exercise, and the only way we can avoid that is by getting a deal agreed and done quickly. If we can do that by 22 May, we can avoid fighting the European parliamentary elections".

What does he mean by "if we can do that"? He was referring to negotiations between the Conservative and Labour parties. Is the government yet again talking as if all that matters is to agree an approach within the UK Parliament?

For the UK to ratify the withdrawal package, the EU (Withdrawal) Act tells us the Commons must vote for a motion to approve the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, the Lords must debate a neutral motion on the two documents, and a Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Bill must go through both houses and receive royal assent.

In addition, the treaty can't come into effect without votes in the EU Parliament and the EU Council. And none of these votes can take place without - at least - a draft being agreed by the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier, and the EU ministers of the EU27 member states.

Is Mrs May's declared intention, echoed above by Mr Hammond, to achieve all this in time to make UK participation in the EU Parliament elections unnecessary? When could this all happen?

The current EU Parliament meets for the last time on 18 April - while the Commons is in recess - and the new parliament doesn't convene until 2 July. Mrs May and Mr Corbyn might come to an agreement on a new political declaration during the week of 22 April and manage the required approval from Mr Barnier and his working group during the following week, but there will be no EU Parliament to approve it.

Yesterday Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) asked the prime minister, "The deal will require ratification by the European Parliament. The current European Parliament will sit for the last time a week from today, and then after the elections it will meet just once in July to sort itself out. It will not really meet properly until October or November. Is an earlier leaving date not actually an impossibility, because the deal cannot be ratified?".

And she replied, "No, it is not an impossibility. It is possible for the European Parliament to ratify in advance of the United Kingdom ratifying". But whatever she might wish to have them approve doesn't exist today, and as and when it does come into being there will be no EU Parliament to consider it.

I'm told that the EU Parliament can be recalled to discuss an important topic, as the Commons can, and that a quorum of a third of MEPs could make such a decision. Is Mrs May relying on that, during an election period?

It's also possible that she's hoping the condition which could have given us an extension to 22 May - the Commons approving the withdrawal agreement - would suffice, but that leaves a huge hostage to fortune, because it would still be possible that the EU Parliament could reject it later, leaving a parliament without British MEPs, and legally invalid. I can't believe that Mr Barnier, the Commission or the Council would allow that to happen.

To put it simply, I don't see how this country will not be taking part in elections to the EU Parliament on 23 May.