Registered user login:

Citizens don't need Goldsmith's report

Darcus Howe

Published 19 March 2008

Lord Goldsmith's hapless citizenship review is trite and without substance

The headlines that followed the publication of Lord Goldsmith's citizenship review caused a disturbance in the mind of my 11-year-old grandchild, who is off to a south London comprehensive this year. His grandmother telephoned asking me to confirm that he is a citizen of the United Kingdom. He was suddenly besieged by demons of doubt that over night it had become compulsory to swear allegiance to the Queen before he is designated a citizen of this land, in which he was born, and in which both his parents were born.

Goldsmith has interrupted the smooth flow of his relations with his fellow citizens. Now he thinks he is a nobody, drifting in the dark until he raises his right hand to the Queen, ending with a thumping rendition of "Land of Hope and Glory", or perhaps "Rule Britannia".

I am not being frivolous. I vaguely remember its being announced that Goldsmith had been given the task of exploring some remote constitutional issues. I paid no attention. This was compensation, I thought, for his utter failure as attorney general, particularly in his advice, or lack of it, to Tony Blair on the Iraq War. His report would gather dust and be forgotten.

I had learned in my legal studies that there was no written constitution for the United Kingdom, but that this serves us well because it allows great flexibility in relations between state and citizen. Goldsmith does not see it this way. This is what he says: "It is easy to imagine that British citizenship should denote a strong connection with membership of the community in the UK; that British citizenship denotes a strong commitment to, and connection with, this country. However, that is not historically the case."

He continues: "In effect, the history of legislation on citizenship and nationality has led to a complex scheme lacking coherence or any clear and self-contained statement of the rights and responsibilities of citizens."

He is way off beam. Between 1914 and 1918, and again from 1939-45, unyielding commitment and a deep connection with the country were the main inspirations for our unstinting support of each other in time of war. We did not need the likes of Lord Goldsmith to denote what our responsibilities and commitments were. Hundreds of thousands travelled from remote parts of India, Africa and the Caribbean to defeat the enemy. So many died for the cause.

Goldsmith's rules and regulations were not necessary then for us to know what we should or should not do. Now, however, a handful of disaffected youths, mainly of Pakistani origin, has panicked this government into regulating our lives by new laws about treason and who is and who is not a citizen.

Goldsmith et al hold the view that a tight rein must be placed on the citizens of this country. The other recommendations of the review are trite and without substance. We need, he says, a national day on which we commit to each other. I expect this will involve mass waving of the Union Jack and citizens singing patriotic songs.

"The national day will provide a framework in which different communities in different parts of the UK come together to celebrate their common bonds," he says.

Has it not crossed his mind that the work process provides just such a coming together each and every day? Thousands march in and out of offices, factories and hospitals, travel with each other on Tubes, buses and trains.

There is much more in Goldsmith's report, all in the same hapless vein. Increasingly, governments are given to regulate our lives from the cradle to the grave. If there is something called Britishness, it is the tendency to resist this interference by the state.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

4 comments from readers

Bruno Rodrigues
19 March 2008 at 20:04

I agree, utter rubbish

a) What is British?

b) Can it be forced through coercive symbolism?

I am not a republican, the monarchy has it's role. But I am loathe to be forced to swear allegance to it, a president or any embodiment of the state.

terryuno
20 March 2008 at 12:07

For once I agree with Darcus. You can't force people to feel anything. Its best we leave that to places like North Korea

RosaLuxemburgII
25 March 2008 at 15:51

People should not be forced to do anything which is not essential. Monarchy is an outdated relic of Feudal society and the reason it has no power now is because we realized it had no place in society other than to act as a Head of State. The Queen, the flag and the anthem mean absolutely nothing to me, what do I owe to QE2? Why should we be forced to be British? My perception of Britishness is not the same as that of Goldsmith. His perception is that of Englishness and this can only serve as ammunition for nationalists in Wales, Sinn Fein and SNP.

TheElitesWin
27 March 2008 at 09:16

RosaLuxumburgII

How can you say the monarchy has no power?

Listen to these phrases;

My Government

My Armed forces

She has the power to reject the government forced treaty into the European Union, but why does she not acted against the decision. She does have the final say, make no mistake about that.

And yes, gone are the days of direct rule by Henry the Viii, but the power still remains with the monarchy.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Darcus Howe

Darcus Howe is an outspoken writer, broadcaster and social commentator. His TV work includes ‘White Tribe’ in which he put Anglo-Saxon Britain under the spotlight. He also fronted a series called Devil’s Advocate.

Read More

Vote!

Should the international community intervene in Gaza?