Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): We welcome this review insofar as we hope it will kickstart a national debate about what it means to be a British citizen. But despite a few positive suggestions, overall Lord Goldsmith's conclusions are a backwards step.
Lord Goldsmith seems to have a one-size-fits-all 'IKEA' view of nationalism. It is a passive view of citizenship concerned primarily with good behaviour and respecting authority. The emphasis is on deference to rather than ownership of the state. He isn't really championing citizenship at all but rather the notion that we should all be regarded as subjects of the Crown.
The UK has always had a very broad franchise which includes members of the Commonwealth resident in the UK. This reflects our rich - and often less than honourable - history. There is certainly an argument that we should expect reciprocal arrangements with other Commonwealth states, but to pull up the drawbridge in the way that Goldsmith suggests is not only negative and defensive but dismissive of our past.
Forcing young people to decide whether or not they wish to pledge allegiance to the Queen is an interesting prospect but one with unintended consequences. In all likelihood a significant number will choose not to, politicising the monarchy and posing questions about its very legitimacy. This is clearly not something Goldsmith wants.
