Parliament debates double citizenship
~ Lower House of Parliament
Gerald Young MP (Speaker): “Order. Order. We now come to the next debate on the Business Paper of the House. To introduce a private member’s Bill, I call mister Oswald Mosely from The Militia (MIL).”
Oswald Mosely MP (MIL): “Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this House to debate an important and, I believe, urgent subject. After the last General Election, at least a dozen candidates with two or more nationalities had their names printed on the ballot papers, and some of them even got elected into this place. This is an outrageous constitutional practice that I cannot accept.
The Militia believes that those serving in the Orange-Bourgognian Parliament should have the nationality and citizenship of Orange-Bourgogne only. We believe this for fundamental constitutional reasons. One of those reasons is that there could arise seemingly dual or multiple conflicting interests that the parliamentarian has to, or is supposed to, serve. I will give an example of it. Let us presume that I have both the Orange-Bourgognian citizenship and that of the Union. It would be difficult to debate things like the English Channel Skirmish for me in Parliament at such times, because I could be expected to advocate the stance of the Union (Imperial Eagle) in this matter. Please note that it is not about actually serving different interests, but the possibility thereof.
We know that all members of Modern Equality have at least two different passports. With the viewpoints brought forward by the Sultan of The Ottoman State, I fear that they might be pressured not to critique the Ottoman policies in this regard. Not even once have we heard them criticize that nation for anything. Not just during this debate, but during all their debates since they first got into Parliament.”
Omar Nayef MP (MEQ): “On a Point of Order, Mr Speaker. It is an outrage that the muttering idiot opposite only mentions the great and holy Ottoman State as an example of pure evil. If anything, we must make sure that he cannot express his poisonous beliefs again in this House. How can my colleagues and I who suffer from this racist proceed to make sure that he no longer harms us?”
Gerald Young MP (Speaker): “It is not for me, as the Member well knows, to interfere with the contents of a speech so long as it is delivered in an honourable manner. If there was disorder in this House, I would bring it to an end instantaneously. The Member will also observe my ruling that he will no longer use the term ‘muttering idiot’ or any equivalent, to describe another Member. Mister Mosely, please continue your speech.”
Oswald Mosely MP (MIL): “The Member knows full-well that I not only used his second nation as the an example, as I already mentioned the Union as another. In fact, I am about to use another example in just a moment if he does not succeed in preventing me from expressing my opinions at all!
So, let me continue my speech by saying that another reason for this private member’s Bill is that a citizen and national of Orange-Bourgogne could fall under the jurisdiction of another state according to that state’s law. This could mean, for example, that, if I were to be a Monegasque citizen, I could be brought before the Monegasque courts without ever having been in that nation! We understand that this in part depends on the national law of the other nation, but it should quite simply not be possible for a politician in our Parliament to fall under any other jurisdiction than that of this nation. Another possibility would be that if a Monegasque lost his job, he would then, based on his dual citizenship, be able to claim an allowance from our Treasury!”
Hellen Gillard MP (Social Republican Front): “Although I cannot agree with the Member on this particular matter, I understand where he comes from. I do have a further question. What should happen to someone who wishes to become a politician in this House, but is tied to dual citizenship because another state’s law dictates that he simply cannot give up his nationality of that state ever?”
Oswald Mosely MP (MIL): “That is part of the problem, indeed. Because if they then continue to fall under the jurisdiction of that other nation, and might thus have obligations or rights additional to our own, we would see that they may claim their rights or fulfil their obligations according to the second nation’s law in fear of prosecution if they do not do so.
I would argue that we should settle these cases on an individual scale. Allow me to give another example: if a person is born to an Orange-Bourgognian father but a Monegasque mother, the person receives dual citizenship and has two potentially competing nationalities. The same goes for marriage between couples of different countries. I do not believe that these should be given another nationality, namely the Orange-Bourgognian one, if they already have another.
What we could do instead, is offer them a special status: if they are willing to publicly relinquish their other nationalities and citizenships, they could be offered a permanent resident status. They may then continue to live here and enjoy the benefits of others who do. Furthermore, if they get children on the soil of this United Kingdom, those will become citizens and nationals, so there is no indefinite status where generations will be affected.
But Mr Speaker, we have already heard the loud opposition from the Modern Equality Members of this House. When asked about the interests they serve in public life, they refused to state that those were only the interests of Orange-Bourgogne. That is why the Bill will include a provision to expel any and all Members of this House and the other place (the Upper House) until they have but Orange-Bourgognian citizenship. So therefore, I think the key question for them to answer, is where lies their loyalty?”
Omar Nayef MP (MEQ): “WHO THE F*** are you to ask me a question on loyalty?! Who are you at all?!”
Gerald Young MP (Speaker): “ENOUGH! I will have order restored in this House. Mister Nayef, resume your seat at once… AT ONCE! Try to behave like adults, and if you can’t – if that is beyond you – than leave the Chamber. We can manage without you, I can guarantee you that.”
Muhammad al Sahwa MP (MEQ): “On a Point of Order, Mr Speaker. I notice that you have now shut down our spokesman for this issue twice, while you have not interfered with any other Member. Why do you treat us differently from the rest, as you have done numerous times in the past as well?
All Members of this House representing Modern Equality have a democratic mandate to serve their constituents. We have a right to be heard!”
At that point, a shoe could be seen flying in the direction of Mr Al Sahwa, who barely managed to avoid it. No one noticed whom exactly had thrown it, but it seemed to be directed from the seats occupied by The Militia. Members of all sides then stormed forward to fight each other, the Speaker in the Chair called order time and again, but could no longer be heard.
The Serjeant-at-Arms and the Doorkeepers, all ex-military personnel, tried to restore order by dragging MPs out of the Chamber, but there are simply too many members fighting. Security officials storm into the Chamber and support the Doorkeepers. It is really an extraordinary sight: Members of several parties stand on the Table of the House, trying to throw off the others. After a few moments, a Member is even thrown from the public gallery down to the Floor, where he can luckily be rescued from further harm by the Doorkeepers. With most parties involved in the fight, it is a blessing to see that the front bench of the Official Opposition (Regnum Unitum) and all members for the Bond of Brothers and Sisters do not partake in the violence. But it goes without saying that the remaining members make up more than enough for them.
[The fight continues for about a quarter, taking more and more victims who got injured.]
Finally, the Doorkeepers have restored order once more. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Arthur of Avalon MP, who remained in his seat during the whole brawl just shaking his head and covering his face from time to time, stood up.
Arthur of Avalon MP (Regnum Unitum): “Mr Speaker. It is with the utmost despise and regret what we just had to witness. I think it proper to calm tensions down and adjourn the House for the remainder of today. I therefore move that this House does now adjourn.”
Gerald Young MP (Speaker) “Without objection agreed to.”
[To be continued.]