Andre Geim won a Nobel Prize for Physics in 2010 "for ground-breaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene." He is in the news again, 15 years later, because the country whose citizenship he claimed when he won that award, Holland, says he is no longer a citizen there. The Dutch have very strict standards for dual citizenship and he, trying to play both sides of the English Channel, seems to have violated them.
Geim fascinates me in part for the silliest of reasons, our birthdays are very close. I was born on October 18, 1958 and Geim was born three days later, on the 21st of that month and year. He received news of his Nobel when he and I each had just entered the month of our 52d birthdays.
But the news that he is no longer officially Dutch? Speaks, I think, to the developing incoherence of the whole concept of national citizenship. If he gains rights by being Dutch that he wouldn't otherwise have by virtue of being a Brit (rights within the EU, which the Brits have left), and if Dutch law allows for challenges to such a decision, then he should of course make such a challenge.
So ... a Nobelist who is a former Dutch citizen, for a brief time also a subject of the British royalty, is now the latter and no longer the former. Hmmm. I guess a Brit politician would be transparently lying were he to say "they aren't sending their best."
Never let the asshats who benefit by this developing incoherence get an even break!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times quotes Geim: “I took it to get the U.K. knighthood and to be called officially ‘Sir Andre,’ prestigious in the U.K.,” he said. “I took it only to receive the British knighthood. I would probably decline this knighthood if I knew the consequences for my Dutch nationality, but that was before Brexit and no one informed me about the consequences at that time.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/04/world/europe/nobel-physicist-dutch-citizenship-revoked.html
ReplyDeleteWhy only "probably"? It must be either because the knighthood has some importance to him, which I hope is more than being called "Sir," or Dutch citizenship is not so important to him. But the latter is not the case, because the Times reports, "Mr. Geim — Sir Andre — says he has 'spent thousands' in legal fees trying to convince Dutch authorities to let him keep his citizenship, including by citing an exception to the rule if it is in 'the interest of the Dutch state,' to no avail."
I don't know why a person should care what nation's citizenship he has, because the only significant benefit that citizenship confers of which I'm aware is the right to a passport. (Passports should not exist, because the planet belongs to all of us, and no one should have a right to stop a person from visiting wherever he wants, but that's another matter.) There's also the right to vote, but that's not significant in terms of the difference that one can make to a country.
But I shouldn't focus on Geim, because the Dutch action is pointless and mindless. It does not benefit them; it only hurts Geim (at least from his point of view). Christopher, why do you call the incoherence of national citizenship "developing." Has something about it changed?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love your quote. Did you Google the matter after seeing my post or have you been following this story too? As to "developing," a verb I just noticed I used twice, frankly I dashed this off pretty quickly and I suppose it shows I retain my anarchic habits of mind and the idea that the absurdity of national citizenship (the flip side of the notion of sovereignty) is becoming obvious is stuck in there. So it is "developing" in the sense of emerging. Not really, or not bloody quickly. ;-(
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t “following” the story, but I had read The New York Times article, so I returned to it and didn’t have to google.
ReplyDelete