Could you pass the British Citizenship test?
The 'Life in the UK' test is a key part of the application process to become a British citizen or settle in the UK.
Tests were introduced in 2005 for migrants seeking citizenship and in 2007 for people applying for settlement, and are intended to prove applicants have 'sufficient knowledge' of British life.
They have proven controversial, however, and have been repeatedly criticised for including questions that many British-born citizens would not know.
Under new plans announced this week by Labour, migrants will need to spend up to a decade in the UK before they can apply for citizenship, and they will also face tougher English language requirements.
The changes could make British citizenship among the hardest to achieve in the anglophone world.
Some have already found the citizenship test hard to pass, with The Independent revealing that one migrant took the test a record 118 times.
The test takes 45 minutes and is made up of 24 questions about British traditions and customs.
Applicants are required to get 18 of the 24 questions right, a 75 per cent pass rate.
Do you think you can do it? We have pulled together a list of some mock questions from lifeintheuktests.co.uk here:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
15 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Chagossians want sovereignty deal to go ahead, says Mauritius legal adviser
Philippe Sands KC, who has represented Mauritius in its legal battle with the UK since 2010, told a House of Lords committee he wanted to 'knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved' in negotiations over the deal. His comments came a day after a panel of UN experts urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to abandon the agreement reached with Mauritius last month and negotiate a new one. The panel, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, said it was 'gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in the processes that have led to the agreement'. The experts also criticised the continuing bar on Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, because of the ongoing presence of a joint UK-US military base. On Wednesday, Mr Sands told the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee: 'To be clear, it is not the case that Chagossians had no role in the negotiations. 'I can tell you that Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles were deeply involved in consulting with successive prime ministers of Mauritius and they attended the hearings at the International Court of Justice.' He added: 'I want to really knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved in the various processes. That is simply not true. 'It is true, however, that the Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division.' Earlier, he had told the committee that, while some UK-based Chagossians wanted the islands to remain British territory, 'most in Mauritius and Seychelles have made very clear…that they wish this deal to go ahead'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia base and have not been allowed to Mr Sands told peers the 'quid pro quo' for the military base remaining on Diego Garcia was Chagossians would be allowed to settle on the outer islands of the archipelago. The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has said will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States, the UN secretary general and the African Union, but heavily criticised by the Conservative Party as a 'surrender'. Mr Sands disagreed with that on Wednesday, saying the deal 'will enhance Britain's position in the world'. He said: 'I can tell you from personal experience, direct comments from countries, ambassadors, prime ministers, presidents around the world, this is seen as Britain back on the world (stage), acting honourably and decently, protecting its interests and safeguarding…the rule of law.'
BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
WhatsApp backs Apple in its legal row with the UK over user data
WhatsApp is planning to support Apple in its legal action against the UK Home Office over user data privacy, BBC News has messaging app's boss, Will Cathcart, said the case "could set a dangerous precedent" by "emboldening other nations" to seek to break encryption, which is how tech firms keep their users' data private."WhatsApp would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services and will continue to stand up for people's right to a private conversation online," he BBC has approached the Home Office for comment. It has previously declined to comment directly on the Apple it has previously told the BBC the government's "first priority" was "to keep people safe" and the UK had a "longstanding position of protecting our citizens from the very worst crimes, such as child sex abuse and terrorism, at the same time as protecting people's privacy. WhatsApp's intervention represents a major escalation in what was an already extremely high-profile - and awkward - dispute between the UK and the row with the UK government erupted in February, when it emerged ministers were seeking the right to be able to access information secured by its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) argument intensified in the weeks that followed, with Apple first pulling ADP in the UK, and then taking legal action against the Home also sparked outrage among US politicians, with some saying it was a "dangerous attack on US cybersecurity" and urging the US government to rethink its intelligence-sharing arrangements with the UK if the notice was not Gabbard, the director of US National Intelligence, described it as an "egregious violation" of US citizens' liberties groups also attacked the UK government, saying what it was demanding had privacy and security implications for people around the world. Privacy versus national security Apple's ADP applies end-to-encryption (E2EE) to files such as photos and notes stored on the iCloud, meaning only the user has the "key" required to view same technology protects a number of messaging services - including makes them very secure - but poses a problem for law enforcement can ask to see data with lower levels of protection - if they have a court warrant - but tech firms currently have no way to provide access to E2EE files, because no such mechanism currently companies have traditionally resisted creating such a mechanism not just because they say it would compromise users' privacy but because there would be no way of preventing it eventually being exploited by 2023, WhatsApp said it would rather be blocked as a service than weaken Apple pulled ADP in the UK it said it did not want to create a "backdoor" that "bad actors" could take advantage complicating the argument around the Home Office's request is that it is made under the Investigatory Powers Act, the provisions of which are often the matter came to court, government lawyers argued that the case should not be made in public in any way for national security in April, a judge agreed with a number of news organisations, including the BBC, and said certain details should be made public."It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," his ruling the time, the government declined to comment on the proceedings but said: "The UK has robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and privacy is only impacted on an exceptional basis, in relation to the most serious crimes and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
South Wales Guardian
17 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Chagossians want sovereignty deal to go ahead, says Mauritius legal adviser
Philippe Sands KC, who has represented Mauritius in its legal battle with the UK since 2010, told a House of Lords committee he wanted to 'knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved' in negotiations over the deal. His comments came a day after a panel of UN experts urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to abandon the agreement reached with Mauritius last month and negotiate a new one. The panel, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, said it was 'gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in the processes that have led to the agreement'. The experts also criticised the continuing bar on Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, because of the ongoing presence of a joint UK-US military base. On Wednesday, Mr Sands told the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee: 'To be clear, it is not the case that Chagossians had no role in the negotiations. 'I can tell you that Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles were deeply involved in consulting with successive prime ministers of Mauritius and they attended the hearings at the International Court of Justice.' He added: 'I want to really knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved in the various processes. That is simply not true. 'It is true, however, that the Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division.' Earlier, he had told the committee that, while some UK-based Chagossians wanted the islands to remain British territory, 'most in Mauritius and Seychelles have made very clear…that they wish this deal to go ahead'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia base and have not been allowed to Mr Sands told peers the 'quid pro quo' for the military base remaining on Diego Garcia was Chagossians would be allowed to settle on the outer islands of the archipelago. The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has said will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States, the UN secretary general and the African Union, but heavily criticised by the Conservative Party as a 'surrender'. Mr Sands disagreed with that on Wednesday, saying the deal 'will enhance Britain's position in the world'. He said: 'I can tell you from personal experience, direct comments from countries, ambassadors, prime ministers, presidents around the world, this is seen as Britain back on the world (stage), acting honourably and decently, protecting its interests and safeguarding…the rule of law.'
