The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Jon]

Oh Lordy!

The Lords about to do what the opposition/Commons couldn't, or rather wouldn't.

This is what Jez should have been whipping his MPs to do, not the bloody opposite.

Government facing Brexit defeat in Lords over EU nationals

 

The government is facing a first defeat for its Brexit bill in the House of Lords later.

Peers are expected to agree to amend the draft legislation to protect the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd had sought to reassure members that EU nationals' status would be a priority once Brexit talks begin.

But a cross-party amendment calling for a firm guarantee is expected to secure the backing of most peers.

If this happens, MPs could remove the Lords' proposed changes again when the bill moves back to the House of Commons.

 

The bill authorises the government to trigger Article 50.

'Utmost respect'

The rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK after Brexit has been one of the most contentious issues during its parliamentary passage so far.

In a letter sent to every peer, Ms Rudd said a guarantee of their right to stay, however "well-intentioned", would not help the hundreds of thousands of UK citizens living on the continent as it could leave them in potential limbo if reciprocal assurances were not given by the EU's 27 other member states.

She said there was "absolutely no question of treating EU citizens with anything other than the utmost respect".

"This isn't just about ensuring British businesses and our public sector have access to the right workers," she wrote.

"We owe it to those many European citizens who have contributed so much to this country to resolve this issue as soon as possible and give them the security they need to continue to contribute to this country."

[Awol]

I gave up arguing about this earlier in the thread, but I still can't understand why people are prioritising making a noble gesture above securing the interests of 100,000's of their own countrymen currently living elsewhere in the EU.

What if the Government went along with a unilateral guarantee and the EU then links the right to remain of UK nationals with some egregious financial demand - i.e. Blackmail. Is that impossible? Is it really the smart move here? 

 

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I gave up arguing about this earlier in the thread, but I still can't understand why people are prioritising making a noble gesture above securing the interests of 100,000's of their own countrymen currently living elsewhere in the EU.

What if the Government went along with a unilateral guarantee and the EU then links the right to remain of UK nationals with some egregious financial demand - i.e. Blackmail. Is that impossible? Is it really the smart move here? 

 

Aren't they just fifth-columnists who hate the nation state and cheer every foreign victory over their class enemies, which might bring about the crisis which will smash the hated system, and no sacrifice is too great, even leaving thousands of ex-pats stateless, to bring forward their yearned for Götterdämmerung.  

Or, they could be just trying to piss you off. 

[markavfc40]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

I gave up arguing about this earlier in the thread, but I still can't understand why people are prioritising making a noble gesture above securing the interests of 100,000's of their own countrymen currently living elsewhere in the EU.

To me it is not putting a noble gesture above securing the interests of our own countrymen living and working abroad it is about giving long term security at the earliest opportunity to those 2-3 million EU citizens currently working in the UK that we interact with everyday.

Lets remember that the UK as a collective chose to leave the EU and therefore by doing so put the futures of those UK citizens amongst us who do live and work abroad in limbo. They need to be pointing the finger at those of us who did that if they currently aren't feeling too secure.

This isn't an us and them situation this is about human beings and if we have the chance to look after, protect and give long term peace of mind and security to those EU citizens who contribute massively to this country then we should do so at the earliest opportunity. They shouldn't be used as pawns in a game.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

I gave up arguing about this earlier in the thread, but I still can't understand why people are prioritising making a noble gesture above securing the interests of 100,000's of their own countrymen currently living elsewhere in the EU.

What if the Government went along with a unilateral guarantee and the EU then links the right to remain of UK nationals with some egregious financial demand - i.e. Blackmail. Is that impossible? Is it really the smart move here? 

There are any number of issues either side could conceivably use as "blackmail" as you put it. In other words if the other EU nations somehow decided to  adopt your scenario (despite the UK having, in that scenario already given all the Poles, Germans French Spanish etc. the right to remain here) then there would remain steps open to the UK to "retaliate" - you mentioned security matters some weeks ago.

The ultimate aim must be to ensure the negotiations are amicable rather than antagonistic, and a massive step towards that would be for the UK Gov't to stop being dicks and to create a great deal of goodwill, both to the other EU Gov'ts and to the EU people in the UK.

Liam Fox might think it's a good idea to use people as negotiating capital, but anyone more human should be able to see that it's a reprehensible step. It's also the duty of MPs to represent the interests of their consitituents, wherever they are from. Those like Fox proposing to do the opposite are odious. Yes looking after Brits abroad is also a Gov't duty, yet that can be done by (and isn't undone or negated by) acting honorably and fairly and with good morality towards the Belgian teachers, French Doctors, Spanish Lawyers, Bulgarian builders and al lthe others who came here, legally, to live and work and contribute

[snowychap]

I suppose calling it a noble gesture is a step up from self-indulgent virtue signalling.

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I suppose calling it a noble gesture is a step up from self-indulgent virtue signalling.

The sentiment is the same, if put more delicately. 

@blandy I understand the reasoning behind a unilateral guarantee but disagree with it, however reprehensible/odious/anathema that may be.

If the negotiations fail (for example being torpedoed by Federalist extremists in the EU Parliament) then London has preemptively given up the only means it has to protect its own citizens abroad.

Any subsequent guarantee for Brits will undoubtedly be tied into a broader agreement to cough up billions by the EU negotiators to apply extra leverage against the UK. 

As I recall you'd previously responded that calling our European security commitments in to question was a total non starter, unless you know think that is an appropriate bargaining chip? 

Ultimately I think the very many people who agree with your position have an overly optimistic view of the EU negotiators moral scruples.

 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

The sentiment is the same, if put more delicately.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

They need to be pointing the finger at those of us who did that if they currently aren't feeling too secure.

F*** being in a police station with you, all the loyalty of a horny Tomcat! 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Awol
Font stuff

[blandy]

Just now, Awol said:

If the negotiations fail (for example being torpedoed by Federalist extremists in the EU Parliament) then London has preemptively given up the only means it has to protect its own citizens abroad.

Any subsequent guarantee for Brits will undoubtedly be tied into a broader agreement to cough up billions by the EU negotiators to apply extra leverage against the UK. 

As I recall you'd previously responded that calling our European security commitments in to question was a total non starter, unless you know think that is an appropriate bargaining chip? 

Why is it (giving EU residents rights to stay) the only means to protect Brits in Spain etc.? 

I absolutely did respond to your suggestion of stopping co-operation on anti Terrorism etc. as a really bad thing to do, because it would lead to worse security all round - it's another version of using people's lives and livelihoods as a "weapon" - something to be used as an absolute last report when all civilised discussion is over - in effect the nuclear weapons.

We need friends i the negotiations, and threats and so on need to be held back. It's utter tripe of May and Fox etc. to say this is about protecting the UK folk in Spain etc. it's false equivalence. Why did May for example happily say "we're not going to bother with the single market" before negotiation even started? Why did she give that up and why are they threatening to turn us into an off-shore tax haven (I paraphrase) before the negotiation's started?

They are both incompetent and odious. They're harming us all the time. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

F*** being in a police station with you, all the loyalty of a horny Tomcat! 

I noticed that too and particularly this bit . It made me smile, too.

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

...They need to be pointing the finger at those of us who did that ...This isn't an us and them situation

 

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Why is it (giving EU residents rights to stay) the only means to protect Brits in Spain etc.? 

I absolutely did respond to your suggestion of stopping co-operation on anti Terrorism etc. as a really bad thing to do, because it would lead to worse security all round - it's another version of using people's lives and livelihoods as a "weapon" - something to be used as an absolute last report when all civilised discussion is over - in effect the nuclear weapons.

We need friends i the negotiations, and threats and so on need to be held back. It's utter tripe of May and Fox etc. to say this is about protecting the UK folk in Spain etc. it's false equivalence. Why did May for example happily say "we're not going to bother with the single market" before negotiation even started? Why did she give that up and why are they threatening to turn us into an off-shore tax haven (I paraphrase) before the negotiation's started?

They are both incompetent and odious. They're harming us all the time. 

Anti-terrorism etc: the context of our previous was the perceived (by you) weakness of our negotiating hand. I raised security and intelligence more broadly as one of several areas the EU needs our cooperation. It doesn't need to be an implicit threat thrown out at an early stage, but something that could be discretly raised if and when it became clear the other party actively sought to damage the UK. 

Single market: Leaving the EU and staying in the single market means no influence at all in organising our external trade arrangements. It's a ludicrous proposition. 

Tax haven/Low corporate tax economy: even with theoretical EU tariff barriers, such a tax regime would likely tempt big European companies to redomicile in the UK. It's a warning of what we could do if they try to cut up rough during the trade negotiations.

Baby eaters: I hold no brief for the Tories, bash away. 

The Lords have passed this amendment on EU nationals so it's back to the Commons - who will rightly chin it off. 

[blandy]

We are in a weak position, IMO, as far as negotiating hand goes. We desperately need as much goodwill (rather than bad will) directed our way. I totally agree about not making implicit threats and only raising things which would hurt the other side, and then quite discretely, as you say, when it becomes clear the other party actively seeks to do us damage.

Which is exactly why using anti terror, or anti crime or residency rights before we've even started negotiating as a potential stick to threaten, and publicly doing so, is utterly wrong. Aside from the callous nature of it.

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

Leaving the EU and staying in the single market means no influence at all in organising our external trade arrangements. It's a ludicrous proposition. 

To you maybe. I think it's worth exploring and not something worth ditching before we negotiate - I mean as an example couldn't they have decided to take an approach where the UK says (where the single market benefits us) we want to remain partly in the market?

I'm not sure who it is that we can't trade with now, that we're really missing out on. There's stuff in the shops from all over the world, and UK stuff is sold all over the world. The single market has been really good in many ways (and it was a UK [tory] initiative, with other nations as well, to basically get the EU to widen out trade through it). Why have the tories abandoned what they hailed as one of Thatcher's triumphs without even a fight?

Re the Lords, I really hope that the MPs stop with this "we must do the exact Theresa May A50 version, without amendment, because referendum. They should be using their judgement on the details. Details that weren't on the referendum papers.

[markavfc40]

55 minutes ago, Awol said:

F*** being in a police station with you, all the loyalty of a horny Tomcat! 

  Loyalty to who though? I don't have any more loyalty to a UK national working abroad than I do to a Spanish nurse working at my local hospital. Neither should be used as a negotiating tool and we should do the right thing now and say EU nationals will be able to stay post Brexit.

Edited March 1, 2017 by markavfc40

[blandy]

Just now, markavfc40 said:

I don't have any more loyalty to a UK national working abroad than I do do a Spanish nurse working at my local hospital

I probably have more "loyalty" to the Spanish nurse than a retiree in Spain. One of them will help me if I'm ill, one of them doesn't pay any taxes to the NHS etc. 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I probably have more "loyalty" to the Spanish nurse than a retiree in Spain. One of them will help me if I'm ill, one of them doesn't pay any taxes to the NHS etc. 

one of them presumably did pay tax into the NHS  etc. until the point they became a retiree ? 

 

[chrisp65]

Life appears to be conspiring against Corbyn at the moment.

The Lords have gone against the Commons and will return the bill to the Commons with an amendment to protect hard working families in Britain that were born in europe.

Having previously whipped his party to support the tory government, what does he do now? Vote down the amendment and endorse the use of hostages as bargaining chips like some right wing arse? Or change his mind and team up with the unelected house of Lords?

 

[ml1dch]

It's an impressive confidence trick that is being pulled - UK nationals' rights in the EU are being put at risk, and the arseholes that campaigned for that to happen are telling the world that it's the fault of those who didn't.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

one of them presumably did pay tax into the NHS  etc. until the point they became a retiree ? 

Yes, fair point, or maybe their husband or wife did. And no they're not using the NHS or social services or libraries or trains or roads. So good luck to them. They shouldn't be pawns in politicians games.

yet the Spanish nurse will still be the one to help me. Maybe the Brit in Spain will help someone too. People not bargaining chips 

[darrenm]

I can't help but feel that lots of other leaders in Europe do things because, you know, it's the right thing to do. And we're here with our government openly being spiteful in front of everyone. But then they're taking the cue from the people who voted with a slight majority to isolate ourselves from other Europeans. Basically saying 'we think we're better than you because we don't want you in our country'. With that message we'll be lucky to get any kind of goodwill at all, so it would be prudent to distance ourselves from any of that rhetoric and say 'we are not interested in pettiness, we'll protect EU nationals' rights in the UK whether this is reciprocated or not'.