Slightly off-topic perhaps, but when the UKPS replied to me last year about the inability to call its offices from overseas, it pointed out that British citizens who are overseas should contact the embassy/high commission. Accepting that this may be a legitimate point for one moment, I now note that the FCO has decided that my nearest embassy, in Washington, should use premium numbers (1-900) for passport queries:

http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=3&i=104&L1=41003&L2=1&a=26272

"Passport services for British Citizens are centralised in Washington DC. Please visit the passport and citizenship pages by clicking here.

All passport telephone inquiries are handled by our outsource partner ABTRAN. Please call 1-900 285 7277. Hours of operation: Weekdays from 08.30-20.30 Eastern Standard Time. Calls cost $2.10 per minute. If you have difficulties reaching the above number and wish to pay by credit card, please call 1-800 630 3332."

For those that may be unaware, 1-900 numbers are often used for sex lines and other adult services. They are also used, less commonly, for pay-per-use helplines - often computer or technology-related. The numbers have a bad reputation and many people here know not to call them.

So if I have to make a query about my passport, I can't call the UKPS in the UK, and I am not prepared to call a premium rate number in the United States.

I would send an email drawing this latest outrage to the attention of all the MPs who have signed the Early Day Motion in the House of Commons.  A pound a minute helpline is a whole level of concern again on from 0870.

Parliamentary email address format is surnamea@parliament.uk (where a is the initial letter of their first name) and 90% of MPs have one.  However more important ministers do not have a parliamentary email address that is publicly known because they want to force you to email their departmental email address instead.  Also a few old fuddy duddy MPs (like my own MP Sir Paul Beresford who has an even fuddier duddier secretary) do not have parliamentary email addresses.  But most do have them and personally read the emails.

This 900 number in the States is quite outrageous and you must draw it to the widest possible attention.  Have you emailed the journalists at the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mirror with further details?

The use of premium rate numbers for passport/visa enquiries is now very common throughout the world. Many countries are adopting this approach. You even have to dial a premium rate number just to book an appointment to apply for a visa in many cases!!

I think it's mainly to do with the increase in youth travel around the globe. I had a Turkish girlfriend; and if she wanted to come with me to Italy say, she had to queue outside the Italian consulate from 6:30am in the morning for at least 4 hours! The rest of the queue was mainly students etc....

If you are a business person; or rich tourist, then you simply get a visa bureau to do the whole thing for you. They have special arrangements with the Embassies.

So I think the premium rate numbers are to keep the students with their endless questions and basic queries at bay. It's to force people to read the website; where you will find 99% of the answers to any queries.

The problem is compounded by the Schengen visa scheme in Europe. Any EU countries can issue one - and it allows travel throughout Europe. So if say one EU country makes it easy, quick and cheap to obtain such a visa from it's consulates/embassies; then they would find that everybody would be going to them for the visa - even though they may never actually visit that country that issued it.

I know that - because she used to do just that!

So I think it's a terrible advert for GB that they have a premium rate line - but that's what happens when the government try to run things - or privatize services with no competition.

But at least they're up-front about it. It's the 0870/45 scam I hate.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 10:40am:

So I think it's a terrible advert for GB that they have a premium rate line - but that's what happens when the government try to run things - or privatize services with no competition

But won't we surely be able to call this number for free next month using Voip then?  Since as we know in your view shortly everything will be Voip and no one will be able to charge for any individual voice calls?

Your arguments that there won't be a way to charge for receiving voice calls when it has all moved from POTS to Voip simply don't stack up.

One minute you tell us its inevitable the whole thing will become free like email and the next you tell us that it is inevitable that organisations like the British government will charge a pound a minute for consular visa information lines.

Please can we have some greater internal consistency in your arguments.

To summarise are you with us or are you against us since at the moment I find it really very hard to tell? ???

Yes I think you are correct PeDaSp, at least a 09 number is honest and straightforward. I am not sure though that it is justified when the cost of passports and visas has increased so much.

For helplines perhaps it is justified since there seem to be an increasing number of time wasters who will otherwise telephone with the most fatuous of queries; but as the only available means to apply for a passport or visa, or to make an appointment to obtain one from your own or a supposedly friendly country (like the USA) - I do not find the use of overt or covert Premium numbers to be acceptable.

My own boundary of acceptability for any concept of a Premium number (whether overt or covert) is whether a true value added service is provided. Therefore to call to make a purchase involves no value added service, since you will be paying for what you purchase and the price should include all incurred overheads as it used to. I believe that you are calling to purchase a passport for example (since you will be paying for it).

If you require a visa from a country in which you do not have any rights or which does not have any special relationship with your own country then you have to accept their terms, and if they decide to use an overt Premium number that is  their choice and you must accept it. However, if a British person wishes to apply for a visa to enter the USA (e.g. they do not have one of the latest form passports) I do not find it acceptable for them to have to call the US embassy on a Premium number to make an appointment, because of the supposed "special relationship" and the fact that US citizens do not need a visa to enter the EU.

As a matter of interest I had a lifetime BI/BII US visa and US Congress just decided to cancel it on arrival several years ago without notice, and did not refund the money I had paid for it! I was and am still very annoyed.  

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 10:40am:

The use of premium rate numbers for passport/visa enquiries is now very common throughout the world. Many countries are adopting this approach. You even have to dial a premium rate number just to book an appointment to apply for a visa in many cases!!

Visa services are different matters to passport ones. Visas are provided for persons wanting to settle in a specific country for a given period, and yes, I am aware that there has been a shift to PRS for such services, and it may well be acceptable, if somewhat distasteful, to use  PRS in these instances, however issuing of passports is a government function for citizens of that country. The use of PRS is wholly inappropriate and demonstrates sheer contempt. The telephone number for passport enquiries at the British High Commission in Ottawa is a standard geographic number, however the DC embassy uses PRS.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 11:07am:

For helplines perhaps it is justified since there seem to be an increasing number of time wasters who will otherwise telephone with the most fatuous of queries

Dorf,

The difficulty is that one man's timewaster is another man's asylum seeker........

But taking your point about deterrent effect etc I don't think charging more than about 25p per minute could possibly ever be acceptable and that would have to be on a line where the clock only started running at the moment you started talking to a real live person.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 11:20am:

Visa services are different matters to passport ones. Visas are provided for persons wanting to settle in a specific country for a given period, and yes, I am aware that there has been a shift to PRS for such services

So what will happen if and when, asPedaSp has prophecied, all voice calls are voip to voip calls and are cost free?

Presumably either Visa issuing services will refuse to answer telephone calls at all and will only accept emails that will receive stock responses.  Or the cost of the Visas will go up so as to build in the average cost of support.  Personally I would favour the latter approach as when someone has a more complicated situation it often isn't their fault.  Of course these services should be allowed to cut off timewasters who just want to argue with them and won't accept the current visa rules.

Naughty Mr NGM   :-*

I've never said  that their "won't be a way to charge for receiving voice calls..." Nor that "no one will be able to charge for any individual voice calls".

Please show me where I've said that!

I think my posts must be too long and tedious and you are not wasting enough time reading them carefully....   ;D

My argument with regards to VoIP/0870/Premium Numbers is that at present most folks don't realize that calling an 0870 number is more expensive then a normal geographic call. This is a scam.

But folks know when they are calling a premium rate number and the cost. They may not like it; and it may not be appropriate - but it's not my idea of a "scam". There is a difference between something being plain "wrong" and a scam. (Although scams are always wrong).

So when VoIP starts to come online big time - and SOME companies and SOME gov depts start to issue VoIP contact numbers; then the consumer/taxpayer will start to question why they can't call say A&L or the DVLA on a VoIP number. ie: not have to call a 0870/45 number which the consumer thinks (and those who have them) think/say are just like calling a normal number.

Corps and the gov have a desire (some of them at least) to be seen to be "with it" so to speak. Who would have thought even 10 years ago that every gov dept would now have it's own web site? And that every civil servant has their own email address?

Soon they will start to feel the same pressure from VoIP. People will start to think - how come I can call BP on a VoIP number but not the DTI? Just as they was a time when BP had a website but the DTI did not.

All this will flush-out the scams (hopefully).

I am quite sure that premium rate calling with always be with us - even if we come to live in a totally VoIP world. I'm sure that as time goes on a way will be found to charge for premium calls directly via VoIP and not through break-out into the PSTN.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 11:32am:

But folks know when they are calling a premium rate number and the cost. They may not like it; and it may not be appropriate - but it's not my idea of a "scam". There is a difference between something being plain "wrong" and a scam. (Although scams are always wrong).

If the government has a monopoly on the supply of Visas for its country and if foreign citizens can only put themselves in a position to apply correctly using the 2 USD a minute phone line then its still my idea of a scam.  The fact that they tell you the caller price doesn't help.  Being charged 50 quid for a passport that takes the Passport Agency 5 minutes to process is still a scam and the fact we are told the price in advance does not make it any more right or less of a scam.

Because people have no choice about calling, unless of course the governement actually replies properly to individual emails on passports and does not just send out a stock email response (the usual way with email replies from customer service centres), then its still a scam even if you know the price.

Email and Voip are different because there is no staff cost in receiving an email but there is a staff cost in receiving a voice call straight away.  With an email you can just decide to ignore it or lose it (the often favoured way) but with a voice call the caller has got you so you have to respond.  The normal rules of human engagement reply and so a real cost for the business cannot be avoided.

Easyjet has an email address for customer complaints but it doesn't appear to cost it anything at all to run because there are no resources invested in reading the emails!

The advantages of Voip are there but they are smaller and less compelling than the advantages of email versus the post.  Thus in my opinion it will take quite some time for the system to be anywhere near universally adopted.

These are the telephone numbers of consular departments, whose duties include issuing passports, of some countries nearest to me. Note that the only one that uses PRS is the British Embassy in Washington. All others use standard geographic numbers. I believe the situation at other British embassies/high commissions is generally to use 'normal' numbering. The use of PRS for the United States is just wrong.

Jamaica
Tel: (876) 510 0700
Fax: (876) 511 5335

Bahamas (refers to Jamaica)

Cuba
Tel: (537) 204 1771/ 72
Fax: (537) 204 8104

Canada
Telephone: 1 613 237 1303
Fax: 1 613 237 6537

Mexico:
Tel: (+52) (55) 5242-8500
Fax: (+52) (55) 5242-8523

USA:
Tel: (900) 285 7277

Wouldn't calling the Canadian number instead give you access to the same range of information?  Or would they refuse to handle your call?

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 12:09pm:

Wouldn't calling the Canadian number instead give you access to the same range of information?  Or would they refuse to handle your call?

I don't think they would refuse to handle the call, it's just that it would not be able to help me unless I was physically present, or likely to be present in Canada, which is fair enough.

It seems the 900 number was only introduced in April 2005. Presumably the FCO has been sold this idea as a money spinner, just like its 0870 travel number in the UK.

To me, it demonstrates exactly what the my own government thinks of me and the millions of other visitors and residents who come here each year that may need consular services.

Once I have qualified for a US passport, which won't be long now, I will simply refuse to renew my British one. They can stuff the passport wherever they desire. As far as I know, there is no requirement for a British citizen to enter the UK using a British passport.

It seems that Abtran, the provider of the service for the British Embassy, is based in Ireland. Its web site states the following:

ABTRAN is a full service e-care and fulfillment solution provider. Primarily ABTRAN provides a complete suite of sales, customer support and fulfillment services to US companies seeking representation in the European marketplace.

ABTRAN'S unique advantage is the degree of accountability and transparency it can offer to its clients. At any point our clients can look deep into to our systems in real time, listen in on calls, access detailed reports, see where every product is in the warehouse system, watch online transactions; in short, its as though ABTRAN shared premises with its customers.

http://www.abtran.com/main.html

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 12:18pm:

Once I have qualified for a US passport, which won't be long now, I will simply refuse to renew my British one. They can stuff the passport wherever they desire. As far as I know, there is no requirement for a British citizen to enter the UK using a British passport.

I do hope that you will not be cutting of your nose to spite your face over this one, even though I of course understanding your feelings regarding the behaviour of the British Embassy.

You don't need a UK passport as a British citizen not currently holding a valid uk passport but you will have to queue at Heathrow with those from other remote parts of the world, many of whom are deemed potential illegal immingrants.  You will also lose the right to reside indefinitely in any part of the European Union without the valid UK passport.  I note that you don't say you will be renouncing your nationality though so presumably you are just protesting at the excessive charges and unhelpfulness?

Wouldn't it be more effective though to write to the British Ambassador and to the Foreign Secretary and to the New York Times and the Washington Post?  If you don't like the reply from the Foreign Office then why not take the issue to the Ombudsman.

Also make sure to keep emailing the MPs signing the current early day motion and the various interested national newspaper journalists with the information.  I'm sure somebody would love to interview you for the File on Four program on BBC Radio 4 or something similar.  Perhaps you could get journalists to take your picture if you come to the uk and have to queue as a foreign national due to the excessive passport fees and costs.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 12:30pm:

I do hope that you will not be cutting of your nose to spite your face over this one, even though I of course understanding your feelings regarding the behaviour of the British Embassy. You don't need a UK passport as a British citizen not currently holding a valid uk passport but you will have to queue at Heathrow with those from other remote parts of the world, many of whom are deemed potential illegal immingrants.  You will also lose the right to reside indefinitely in any part of the European Union without the valid UK passport.  I note that you don't say you will be renouncing your nationality though so presumably you are just protesting at the excessive charges and unhelpfulness? Wouldn't it be more effective though to write to the British Ambassador and to the Foreign Secretary and to the New York Times and the Washington Post?  If you don't like the reply from the Foreign Office then why not take the issue to the Ombudsman. Also make sure to keep emailing the MPs signing the current early day motion and the various interested national newspaper journalists with the information.  I'm sure somebody would love to interview you for the File on Four program on BBC Radio 4 or something similar.  Perhaps you could get journalists to take your picture if you come to the uk and have to queue as a foreign national due to the excessive passport fees and costs.

I have no intention of giving up citizenship - this would be pointless and be of no benefit, however I do not need a British passport to enter the UK as long as I have another one. As for queuing with all the other foreign passport holders, if I'm traveling with my wife, I have to do this anyway as she is American, so it's no big deal. I actually sent  a complaint email to the embassy, but it bounced. I don't think raising with the press will get anywhere - as you have said elsewhere, the standard of consumer journalism is poor and it's probably too concerned with Big Bruv at the moment. If I ever receive a response from my MP regarding the multiple submissions I made about PITO etc, I may well contact him. What I will do is submit a FOI request to the FCO and ask why surrounding countries do not use PRS but the embassy in the US does.

You state that without a valid passport, I lose the right to live/work/whatever in the EU - are you *certain* about that? My belief is that as long as you are a citizen of one EU country, then you could live more or less anywhere in the EU. The possession of a passport does not necessarily demonstrate citizenship, although it often and usually does. I believe my UK birth certificate would demonstrate British citizenship - after all, this is the document I used to obtain a UK passport in the first place! Anyway this is all a little OT now.

I am just sick and tired of my own government using NGNs in the UK and using PRS overseas.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 12:51pm:

You state that without a valid passport, I lose the right to live/work/whatever in the EU - are you *certain* about that? My belief is that as long as you are a citizen of one EU country, then you could live more or less anywhere in the EU. The possession of a passport does not necessarily demonstrate citizenship, although it often and usually does. I believe my UK birth certificate would demonstrate British citizenship - after all, this is the document I used to obtain a UK passport in the first place! Anyway this is all a little OT now.

I can't see how you will establish your right to permanent residence or even indefinite temporary residence in the other EU countries without a British passport.

If they admit you via your United States passport it will be on a tourist visa with a specific time restriction.  If you don't leave the country by the time the visa is up you will be in violation of their immigation rules.  Your birth certificate won't get you very far.  That will only be recognised as a valid legal document that lets you claim a uk passport by the uk authorities.

Of course if you only intend to visit Europe as a tourist for a couple of weeks at a time then the issue will clearly not ariise.

Who is your MP?  They are clearly totally useless.  If he/she continues not to reply I would write to an MP of the same party for a neighbouring constituency.  Assuming that he is more efficient in dealing with correspondence (most MPs are very good with this) this is sure to embarass your MP into action.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 1:00pm:

I can't see how you will establish your right to permanent residence or even indefinite temporary residence in the other EU countries without a British passport.

You may be right, but a passport does not necessarily demonstrate status.


wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 1:00pm:

If they admit you via your United States passport it will be on a tourist visa with a specific time restriction.  If you don't leave the country by the time the visa is up you will be in violation of their immigation rules.  Your birth certificate won't get you very far.  That will only be recognised as a valid legal document that lets you claim a uk passport by the uk authorities.

I'm not sure that your assertion is correct. As a British citizen, I have the legal right to enter the UK and stay for as long as I want. Period. I really do not know what would happen if I entered on a foreign passport and overstayed my time. How can a British citizen be deported? The UK birth certificate is the document I used to establish my citizenship for the purpose of obtaining a passport in the first place. Taking citizizenship of another country does not void the British citizenship I have. Anyway it's all irrelevant to me as the situation will not arise. It's also way off-topic!


wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 1:00pm:

Who is your MP?  They are clearly totally useless.  If he/she continues not to reply I would write to an MP of the same party for a neighbouring constituency.  Assuming that he is more efficient in dealing with correspondence (most MPs are very good with this) this is sure to embarass your MP into action.

My MP is Jonathan Shaw. He has responded to me about 0870, but that was when I lived in Kent. I have to contact him through the parliamentary web form - not ideal as it wants postcode and address details and can't cope very well with foreign addresses, but I appear to have confirmation of delivery.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 1:16pm:

I'm not sure that your assertion is correct. As a British citizen, I have the legal right to enter the UK and stay for as long as I want. Period. I really do not know what would happen if I entered on a foreign passport and overstayed my time.

I was referring to the position in another EU member state who could deport you if you did not posess a valid uk passport establishing your right of full abode in the UK.  The UK would not deport you for overstaying a visa on a US Passport but they might fine you for entering the country using the wrong document when your intention was to take up permanent uk residence again.


Quote:

How can a British citizen be deported? The UK birth certificate is the document I used to establish my citizenship for the purpose of obtaining a passport in the first place. Taking citizizenship of another country does not void the British citizenship I have.

Correct but you would not manage to stay in another EU country after your US Passport visa had expired without producing a British passport.  You could of course at that stage always produce your birth certificate at the local embassy to obtain a British passport.  You might even need to telephone the local embassy's information line. ;)

By the way the USA does quite often require those who want to acquire its nationality to give up their own original nationality to get it.  But I believe this is not a usual requirement for spouses of US citizens born in the USA.


Quote:

My MP is Jonathan Shaw. He has responded to me about 0870, but that was when I lived in Kent. I have to contact him through the parliamentary web form - not ideal as it wants postcode and address details and can't cope very well with foreign addresses, but I appear to have confirmation of delivery.

You could always email him instead using shawj@parliament.uk and cut out the parliamentary web form.  The only difference is you would mess up the statistics of the Parliamentary website as to what types of enquiry they were getting and from where.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 1:48pm:

I was referring to the position in another EU member state who could deport you if you did not posess a valid uk passport establishing your right of full abode in the UK.  The UK would not deport you for overstaying a visa on a US Passport but they might fine you for entering the country using the wrong document when your intention was to take up permanent uk residence again. Correct but you would not manage to stay in another EU country after your US Passport visa had expired without producing a British passport.  You could of course at that stage always produce your birth certificate at the local embassy to obtain a British passport.  You might even need to telephone the local embassy's information line. ;) By the way the USA does quite often require those who want to acquire its nationality to give up their own original nationality to get it.  But I believe this is not a usual requirement for spouses of US citizens born in the USA. You could always email him instead using shawj@parliament.uk and cut out the parliamentary web form.  The only difference is you would mess up the statistics of the Parliamentary website as to what types of enquiry they were getting and from where.

All persons undergoing naturalization to become US citizens are *required* by law under oath, to renounce their former citizenship. There is no exception to this for spouses. However, United Kingdom law does not recognize this renouncement of  British citizenship (it has to be done by another means), so a person may have dual US/UK citizenship. There is an excellent article at http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html if you are interested.

Thanks for the e-mail address of the MP - I will try this out and see what happens.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 1:58pm:

Thanks for the e-mail address of the MP - I will try this out and see what happens.

That is the standard parliamentary email address format but it might not work if (a) he has chosen not to activate his parliamentary email account as is true of about 100 MPs or (b) there was another shawj who was already an employee or an MP at the time your MP was elected.  If that is the case I suppose he might be shawj2@parliament.uk or something.  Why they can't support firstname.lastname@parliament.uk is beyond me but it is a very old and clunky website that reflects its non commercial civil servant led nature.

If the email account shawj@parliament.uk does not exist you will get a bounce back.  As this is August don't expect an instant response though.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 2:10pm:

That is the standard parliamentary email address format but it might not work if (a) he has chosen not to activate his parliamentary email account as is true of about 100 MPs or (b) there was another shawj who was already an employee or an MP at the time your MP was elected.  If that is the case I suppose he might be shawj2@parliament.uk or something.  Why they can't support firstname.lastname@parliament.uk is beyond me but it is a very old and clunky website that reflects its non commercial civil servant led nature. If the email account shawj@parliament.uk does not exist you will get a bounce back.  As this is August don't expect an instant response though.

Thanks - useful information.

(OT)

You may be interested to see how accessible one public official here is - the Mayor of New York City.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/15/wny15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/15/ixworld.html

<<
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has scored a public relations coup by taking a telephone call at home at night from a woman seeking help with a housing problem. The billionaire mayor recently received a call at 10.15pm at his Upper East Side house from a Brooklyn teacher on behalf of her 94-year-old aunt, who was facing eviction.

Mr Bloomberg, 63, whose home number is listed by directory inquiries, stopped the threatened eviction. "I said, 'Mayor Bloomberg, is that you? I'm sorry I'm calling so late','' said Sheila Powsner, 55. "He just said, 'Oh, please call this number and I'll take care of it'.''

Mr Bloomberg said: "I work for the people - that's part of my job."
>>

MPs and Ofcom could learn something from the last line above.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 2:10pm:

If the email account shawj@parliament.uk does not exist you will get a bounce back.  As this is August don't expect an instant response though.

Or September.

Or the first half of October.

In fact, not at all until the honourable members return from their 80-day summer recess,

Actually you will find that Parliament is in London and many have constituencies in Wales, Yorkshire and Scotland.  They don't spend all summer on holiday but take just 2 or 3 weeks on holiday and then attend lots of events etc in their constituencies.  If Parliament wasn't in recess for about 16 weeks a year I imagine there would be a lot more divorces and a lot more unhappy constituents who never saw their MPs.

MPs have secretaries and if a secretary is on holiday another temporary secretary or a research assistant takes over to provide cover.  They don't ignore your correspondence just because it is the summer.

I would suggest that a much cushier job than being an MP is being an overpaid and publicly unaccountable director of Ofcom.

NGM I am not sure that what you suggested about idb loosing his British citizenship is true. I believe if you do not renew your British passport you do not loose your right to a British passport and to British Nationality when you have had it, (just as you are not compelled to renew your passport all of the time when living in the UK). You still have British citizenship and the UK government does not prohibit dual nationality. However I am not sure that the US government does not prohibit it in which case idb would possibly loose it if he applies for US citizenship.

I would agree though that it would not be sensible to let his British passport expire without renewing it, since it is always useful to have dual citizenship and two passports. However the other issue idb needs to consider is the US attitude to worldwide income and taxation. It is I believe more invasive and more draconian for US citizens than that of the UK?

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 5:54pm:

NGM I am not sure that what you suggested about idb loosing his British citizenship is true. I believe if you do not renew your British passport you do not loose your right to a British passport and to British Nationaility when you have had it, (just as you are not compelled to renew your passport all of the time when living in the UK). You still have British citizenship and the UK government does not prohibit dual nationality.

Dorf,

I think the intensity of my debate on this issue with idb may have in fact left you confused.

I never suggested that not having a passport or not renewing one deprived you of the right to British nationality or residence (a large percentage of the uk population still do not have a passport).  I only said you would lose your right of permanent abode in the other EU countries without a valid uk passport.  I also said that if idb didn't renew his British passport and then re-entered the country on his American passport that he would probably be committing an offence for which he might be fined but clealry he couldn't be deported since one does not require a passport to reside in the UK.  One does require it to reside in the rest of the EU though.

As for the complexities of obtaining US citizenship while retaining British citizenship that is all laid out in the little article to which idb provided the link:-

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html

I knew an American lady married to a British citizen about 15 years ago who did not take British citizenship because the Americans would then have made her give up her US passport.  But clearly things have moved on since then and the Americans now seem to take the view that once you have obtained US citizenship it is  now quite hard to lose it, even if you were not born in the country.

I hope that clarifies the position.

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 5:54pm:

I would agree though that it would not be sensible to let his British passport expire without renewing it, since it is always useful to have dual citizenship and two passports.

Couldn't agree more.

My sister-in-law has dual British/Spanish nationality and has Passports and Driving Licences from each.  She also has a Spanish I.D. card - allowing Europe-wide travel without using either Passport!

wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2005 at 5:54pm:

NGM I am not sure that what you suggested about idb loosing his British citizenship is true. I believe if you do not renew your British passport you do not loose your right to a British passport and to British Nationaility when you have had it, (just as you are not compelled to renew your passport all of the time when living in the UK). You still have British citizenship and the UK government does not prohibit dual nationality. However I am not sure that the US government does not prohibit it in which case idb would possibly loose it if he applies for US citizenship. I would agree though that it would not be sensible to let his British passport expire without renewing it, since it is always useful to have dual citizenship and two passports. However the other issue idb needs to consider is the US attitude to worldwide income and taxation. It is I believe more invasive and more draconian for US citizens than that of the UK?

Much of what you say is correct - nationality is not dependent on having a passport. Most Americans, for example, do not have passports. British nationality is usually either obtained through birth, through a relative's birth, through naturalization, or possibly by some other means such as colonial legacy.

The UK is perfectly happy with dual citizenship, as is the US. On naturalization in the US, one is required to renounce any other citizenship, however the UK does not recognize such renouncement as valid.

You are correct about the taxation system here - the IRS requirements for filing tax returns on both citizens and residents are far stricter than in the UK and does, as you state, include income from anywhere. The actual detail is, however, complex!

NGM, OK I accept what you say. Perhaps I did misinterpret your earlier post somewhat.

OK idb, so essentially you do agree.

This article probably helps to explain why the FCO is so incompetent:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4745467.stm

<<
Foreign Office management d4mned

The Foreign Office is over-staffed, inefficient and resistant to change, according to a report ordered by the department itself. The damning consultants' report says one in 13 staff at the Foreign Office could be axed.

It says: "The entire organisation needs to be challenged and reformed but the leadership lacks the skills needed and the will to upset the status quo."

The Foreign Office says it has already acted on the report's recommendations.

The report was brought into public view by Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, who had it placed in the House of Commons library.

"It is a devastating report, showing systematic poor management, lack of accountability and bureaucracy by the Sir Humphreys and Terry Thomas-type characters who still occupy the top echelons of the Foreign Office," said the MP. [...]

It goes on: "Employees are seen as generalists so that a lack of professional competence or experience in (say) finance or human resources (or even in specific political or diplomatic skills) is accepted even where it acts as a significant drag on the effectiveness of a department."

[...]
>>

Very Interesting Info idb.  Although don't forget that following the Sharm El Sheikh bombings at least the Foreign Office was giving out a London 020 number as the emergency line.  So they can't actually be as incompetent, inefficient or out of touch as the Home Office in that respect!

What do you do for a job by the way that lets you contribute here so regularly like me?  Are you a freelance journalist or what exactly?  I am unemployed from one job and only part time employed at home by the other, which has always only been part time.  Well it could be full time if I wanted it to time wise but the pay isn't adequate to justify that.

wrote on Aug 4^th, 2005 at 4:38pm:

Very Interesting Info idb.  Although don't forget that following the Sharm El Sheikh bombings at least the Foreign Office was giving out a London 020 number as the emergency line.  So they can't actually be as incompetent, inefficient or out of touch as the Home Office in that respect! What do you do for a job by the way that lets you contribute here so regularly like me?  Are you a freelance journalist or what exactly?  I am unemployed from one job and only part time employed at home by the other, which has always only been part time.  Well it could be full time if I wanted it to time wise but the pay isn't adequate to justify that.

In fairness to the FCO, it has used this London number in the past for major incidents that happened overseas. However the London explosions resulted in the FCO advertising the +44 870 number on many (possibly all) of its embassy web sites. I don't recall it changing the number on the web site for the DC embassy even after the geographic alternative became available.

As to my line of work, I'm an IT Analyst but currently seeking full-time work! If anyone knows of any openings in south Florida, please let me know!

wrote on Aug 4^th, 2005 at 5:20pm:

As to my line of work, I'm an IT Analyst but currently seeking full-time work! If anyone knows of any openings in south Florida, please let me know!

I thought you might currently be a gentleman of relative leisure as indeed I am.

As the old saying goes it takes one to know one. ;) ;D

Of course I would be happy to take up the anti 07/8/9 crusade as a full time profession, if only I could think of a way to make it pay.