Citizenship and the Constitution - a positive view

General and Other Policy
1

Historically we were all subjects of the King. As the Empire spread, all of the inhabitants of the Empire became subjects of the King, with the same rights as the English, Irish, Welsh and Scots. Distance, and the difficulty and cost of international travel meant that few left the land they were born on.

With the lowering of the cost of travel following the second world war and with de-colonisation, immigration started, and as the authorities reacted, they created, for the first time, the concept of Citizenship, and over the years this was developed to control immigration.

The development of the concept of citizenship was therefore a negative reaction, rather than a positive affirmation.

I believe we need a positive definition of citizenship.

Being a Citizen of a country involves allegiance to and adherence to the Constitution of the Country.

The Constitution of the UK is famously unwritten, but there are three elements that, following the Glorious Revolution’s settlement of the questions that animated the Civil War, are beyond doubt, and that ought to form the basis of Citizenship.

  1. The King is the head of state, and we are his subjects.
  2. Sovereignty lies with the King in Parliament, which passes laws his his name.
  3. In all matters that are not covered by Parliamentary Statute, the Common Law is the law of the land.

Belief that the Common Law is the law of the land is fundamental. However, someone could legitimately be a republican and prefer a President. Equally, someone could legitimately (though it is less likely) be a Monarchist and believe that government ought all to be by the King through Orders in Council. Citizenship therefore involves belief in (3) and at least one of (1) and (2).

Belief that the king is not the legitimate head of state AND that parliament is not sovereign places a very different complexion on that person’s bona fides. Belief that the Common Law should be replaced by another system of law also gives their views a very different complexion.

If these are your beliefs, you are not morally qualified to exercise the rights, or carry out the duties and or bear the responsibilities of citizenship of this country.

If someone is Citizen, and they are unable to affirm (3) and at least one of (1) and (2), then if they are before a court, this fact should be taken into account in assessment of the nature of their crime (is it a just criminal or is it subversive?), and in sentencing.

For any new arrival to this country, it should be mandatory that they swear an oath that they believe all three. If they subsequently do an act that is inconsistent with their oath, criminal or not (eg promote the view that Sharia Law should be the law of the land), then plainly they did not swear that oath in good faith, their citizenship should be revoked and they should be deported.

The basics of the Constitution and the rights duties and responsibilities of Citizenship should be taught in schools. American children all recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the Republic. It is plain to all visitors to America how unifying the flag is to them as a result - I do not advocate introducing the same here, but we need to think about the obligations that bind us as Citizens and what this means about who we are in a positive way.

3 Likes
2

I wrote the following under another policy heading, but as this is about promoting the knowledge of our constitution, thought it worth repeating my thoughts here (with a little elaboration):

I think politics should be a part of the curriculum in schools, say in the last year or two before school leaving age. But because of the overwhelming bias to the left in the teaching profession, the curriculum will need to define what is taught pretty well.

So, the curriculum should emphasise matters of fact: how parliament works, what part is played by political parties to form a government and opposition (but not which one the teacher favours!), how elections work, the role of the monarchy, what the house of Lords does, the function of select committees, the judicial system, how local government works, and so on.

And the democratic system should be presented as something we are proud to have. A historical perspective should be included to set the subject matter into a narrative, perhaps beginning with democratic ideas in ancient Greece, and the development of democracy and freedoms throughout the history of Britain. This should be contrasted with other forms of rule and governance that have been known in history.

1 Like