Memorandum by the Department of External Affairs for Éamon de Valera (Dublin)
'Notes on British Nationality Proposals'¹

POINT I Repeal of 1914 Act
The repeal of the offensive provision of the 1914 Act is pure gain from our point of view.

It is unlikely that the British would re-enact a principle to which we are known to object so strongly, and it is a safe assumption, therefore, that we will get the benefit of this change whether or not we go to the Conference or have any understanding on general principles with the British before it.

The proposed new definition of 'citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies' would include persons born in the Six Counties. It is proposed to give the British a written note of protest against this.

The proposed definition of 'citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies' may come to have practical significance in connection with public and local authority appointments, social security benefits, and other statutory rights in Great Britain. This may affect our University graduates and other citizens and is, therefore, a point to bear in mind in examining whatever proposals the British eventually make regarding (a) the reciprocal grant of citizenship rights and (b) 'naturalization' (points III and V below). These matters are to be discussed at the forthcoming Conference.

Conversely, of course, the new definition of 'citizens of the United Kingdom' may help to clear up questions of citizenship obligations, particularly as regards military service.

POINT II Retention of British Nationality in certain cases
The British say that they are going to have great difficulty in persuading the House of Commons that our citizens should cease to have the status of British subjects but should nevertheless continue to enjoy in Great Britain, broadly speaking, the same rights as Commonwealth citizens possessing British subject status. The British say that, if they are to be able to face Parliament on this issue, they must have a clause providing for the retention of British nationality by persons who at present possess that status under their law and wish to retain it. The British seem to have in mind primarily - but by no means exclusively - persons who have served, or are serving, in their armed forces or other Government services.

This is a serious 'snag', all the more so because, on any broad view, the British can claim a certain amount of reasonableness on their side. From our point of view, there are two deep-rooted objections. However narrowly its scope is restricted, the 'retention' clause would continue a principle to which we, of course, cannot give even the slightest measure of acquiescence. Secondly, from the practical point of view, the clause would hold out to certain classes of Irish citizens a direct inducement to disloyalty. The latter objection might, to a large extent, be met by narrowing down the classes of persons to whom the clause would apply, but it is doubtful if any limitation of the clause can wholly eradicate the objection in principle.

Possibly the least objectionable solution from our point of view would be a clause roughly on the lines of:-

'A citizen of a Scheduled country who is not a British subject under Section (1) may be deemed to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if either:-

1.  he has been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for a period of not less than --- years; or
2.  he holds, or has held, any office, title or honour under the British Crown;
3. he is serving, or has served, in the armed forces of the United Kingdom or in any civil employment under the Government of the United Kingdom or the Colonies: etc., etc.'

A proviso might be added giving the people to whom the clause applied the option of renouncing citizenship of the United Kingdom by a declaration made in a prescribed form.

POINT III Reciprocity instead of allegiance
There is nothing objectionable about this point. It means simply that in future, to the extent to which our people in Britain are not treated as ordinary aliens, the concession will depend, not on their having the status of British subject, as was the position in the past, but on the grant of a broadly similar position to citizens of the United Kingdom in this country. That, of course, is nothing more or less than the system at present obtaining here under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935, and the Aliens Exemption Order of the same year.

To what extent does this principle guarantee our citizens in Great Britain the same advantages as they have enjoyed in the past as British subjects? We have no precise indication as to this. The question is to be discussed at the forthcoming Conference.

Is there anything sinister in the use of the word 'status' in the British statement of this point? No. What is meant is simply this. Our people will no longer be British subjects in Great Britain. Under British law, persons who are not British subjects (or British-protected persons) are aliens. The British do not propose to treat our citizens as ordinary aliens, so the idea is to give us some special status which will not be that of British subjects on the one hand, or that of ordinary aliens on the other. In other words, they propose to give us a position similar to that which British, Canadian, Australian, etc., citizens enjoy here under the Aliens Exemption Order, 1935. What precisely that position will denote in terms of actual rights and privileges remains to be determined, and, no doubt, the discussions at the forthcoming Conference will influence the eventual determination of the question.

POINT IV Dual Nationality
The British seem to think that we attach more importance to this point than, in fact, we do, but it is desirable that we should clarify our own minds with regard to it.

What is meant by the point is this. The British will not insist on the abandonment of Irish citizenship by Irish citizens in Great Britain who decide to acquire citizenship of the United Kingdom by naturalization. The British assume that this is what we want and that we, on our side, do not wish to have to deprive Irish citizens of their nationality merely because they acquire citizenship of the United Kingdom by naturalization. The question is: what do we really want?

Dual nationality is undesirable in principle, though, in practice, its worst consequences are limited by well-established international rule. For example, military obligations in the case of dual nationality are defined by a Hague Convention, and another rule provides that a man who is a citizen of countries A and B cannot plead his citizenship of B as an excuse for failing to bear allegiance, and perform his duties as a citizen, while resident in country A. The type of case we must bear in mind is that of the Irish teacher, nurse, priest, nun or doctor who goes to England with an animus revertendi and finds it necessary to take out naturalization after two years merely for the purpose of qualifying for grants or positions in public services or State-controlled institutions. Would it be fair that such people should be deprived of their Irish citizenship by reason of their naturalization in Britain and thereby rendered ineligible for certain posts here when they returned?

Perhaps the best policy is to keep the question of dual nationality open until we see what the effect of the new definition of 'citizens of the United Kingdom' is going to be on the employment opportunities of our citizens in Britain.

POINT V This point does not call for special comment. The new Bill will sharply differentiate Irish citizens from citizens of Commonwealth countries. The latter are expected to continue to be British subjects owing allegiance to the British King. Our citizens in Great Britain will not be British subjects, will not owe allegiance, and will only be saved from being in the same position as ordinary aliens by the clause providing for the reciprocal exchange of rights (Point III above).

It is proposed to provide in the new British Bill that citizens of other Commonwealth countries can become citizens of the United Kingdom after two years' residence, whereas the minimum period in the case of ordinary aliens is five years. The proposal is that our citizens should be put in the same position as citizens of Commonwealth countries in this regard and should be capable of taking out naturalization after two years' residence.

General Observations
Should we go to the forthcoming Conference? No matter what we do, the British Bill will have features which are undesirable from our point of view. If we go to the Conference, will we thereby put ourselves in the position of agreeing to, or accepting, those undesirable features in advance? We don't think so. We think that the Conference will give us an opportunity of placing our views on disputed points on record. We may, in fact, be blamed later, if it becomes known that we were offered that opportunity and did not take it. The British Bill will be in no sense an 'agreed' measure. What the British Government are doing is consulting the other Governments before they introduce the Bill, but we are free to put forward, either now or at the Conference, any views we like and to have those views placed on record.

Would our attendance at the Conference tend to tie us into the Commonwealth? On the contrary, we think that there is a substantial chance of getting in the proposed new Bill a statutory recognition by the British Parliament (a) of the fact that we are not in the same position as the members of the Commonwealth but are merely associated with the Commonwealth, and (b) that our association with the Commonwealth is of a purely external nature, whereas the members of the Commonwealth, by virtue of their common status of British subject, and their common allegiance, form between themselves a separate coherent whole. There is some danger that, if we don't go to the Conference, the British Parliament's recognition of our special position will be less clear-cut than it would otherwise be.

Finally, there is the point that the British Government's readiness to meet us on the British subject point is part of a deliberate policy which holds that, if Britain is prepared to abandon out-of-date claims and to meet the national views of countries like ourselves on points of this kind, better relations will result in the long run. We must be careful not to discourage the people who hold these views by putting it into the mouths of their critics to say that they are lessening the advantages of secular British policies without getting anything in return.