In the hope that it may clear the enforced, recent, 'hoiiday fog' of our brains which may not yet have achieved full functionality, the following is reposted from ScribblingsfromSeaham. In this regard one can but repeat the quotation which forms part of the heading to this site:

To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not a nation of observers.

When a foreign national seeks citizenship/naturalisaton of their host nation, who should make that decision – those of the community in which the applicant lives; or, as in the United Kingdom, a bureaucratic, box-ticking government department?

Recently, in Switzerland, a case concerning a woman who had lived in Switzerland since she was eight, speaks fluent Swiss German, has three children with Swiss passports, has no criminal record, doesn’t claim welfare and is politically active was rejected. On the face of it, one would have thought she would be a ‘shoo-in’ for a Swiss passport. How wrong you are..

Read the article and you will find the reasons why the outcome of her application was rejected. You will also be able to read the comments to the article, among which is mine.

As I wrote, my view is that only those to whom ‘ownership’ of a nation is a ‘given’ should be able to confer citizenship and the benefits that such brings.

Should that not be the case in our nation, the United Kingdom?

Is there not a case made, in this instance, for ‘people power’ – and should not ‘people power’ be able to decide any matter which affects that people’s nation?

What do my readers think?

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

One thought on “Naturalisation

  1. Tony Day

    Yes the people should have an input but in a universally structured manner.
    The implication in the question is that the current UK system does not consult local people but in a more limited sense it does,

    Form AN1 Application for Naturalisation requires signatures of two referees who must have known the applicant for at least three years and are unrelated to the applicant.
    Seems to me that the applicant in the Swiss case was hard done by, by people that were more concerned with their local values rather than the values of Switzerland as a whole.
    The Swiss system seems to be fragmented, leaving decisions on Nationalisation to individuals in Cantons who presumably all have slightly different priority’s is not IMHO very clever or fair.
    In this area it seems to me that the English System has more merit, it demands that the applicant has a good command of the Language and Knowledge of the Country and it’s culture (IMHO maybe to too high a standard in both cases) plus two local referees and can prove that they are “settled”.
    There is a standard and it’s universal.

    The deficit in terms of democracy is not with Nationalisation it is with “Leave To Remain” for which no local referees are required at all.

    Original Article at


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *