The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[chrisp65]

I hope when I'm under investigation for election fraud I'll be given some free pre emptive time to pitch my case on the BBC.

Something's gone very wrong at the beeb, and they're backing the wrong horse in the hope they get treated more leniently than others in the brave new reich.

[HanoiVillan]

Hands up if you can imagine him saying that to a Tory MP. 

[NurembergVillan]

30 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Hands up if you can imagine him saying that to a Tory MP. 

Or a man.

Fat melt.

[bickster]

Andrew Neil thinks he's hard on Twitter, he's a grade A gobshite that cant take any level of criticism

[bickster]

Carol Cadwalladr's response to the smears of Banks (thread)

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

Arron Banks, a face you'd simply never tire of punching.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Dr_Pangloss

[bickster]

Carol Cadwalladr's response to the smears of Banks (thread)

 

[snowychap]

On 03/11/2018 at 23:01, peterms said:

Not sure what you mean by Texas etc

It's about painting targets after the shooting has taken place.

On 03/11/2018 at 23:01, peterms said:

I don't think that with-hindsight assessment of success is a completely reasonable way to judge decisions made without that knowledge.

I do think that assessing those decisions in light of what knowledge was available to the decision-maker is fair.  In doing so, we assess the bases for the decisions. It's very commonplace.

You appear to be doing the first and not the second here.

To return to what you actually suggested: you proposed a course of action that requires something to 'emerge over time' when time is one of the variables that is most at issue. In order to deal with this flaw, you have said 'if, may very well, and if'. You have put forward a course of action where its main constraint is not dealt with by the course of action itself but by merely wished for occurrence(s). A tactic, strategy, decision made on those bases (i.e. that things will just align to remove a crucial constraint) is one made on a wing and a prayer - flimsy bases indeed.

To say that 'they do this all the time' and then to give the two examples you have in order to defend this claim suggests ther claim is not well made at all.

This is all rather by the by, though. It's the issues with your 'better position' which are of relevance not whether they compare well or not with calls made by Cameron or May.  

 

[snowychap]

Politics.co.uk:

Quote

There's been a little-noticed move by the government on the post-Brexit EU migrant system, which suggests - contain your surprise - that its promises aren't worth the paper they're written on.

For months now, ministers have been insisting that there'd only be four criteria for securing settled status as an EU migrant after Britain left the EU: Being who you claim to be, being an EU citizen, being resident in the UK and not being guilty of a serious criminal offence. The system would be simple and easy-to-navigate. The Home Office was looking to pass people, not least because the online application process would probably collapse if there were too many rejections.

"We will check that the applicant is not a serious or persistent criminal and does not pose a security threat... but we are not concerned with minor offences, and these provisions will not affect the overwhelming majority of EU citizens and their family members," Theresa May said.

Similar assurances were given by immigration minister Caroline Nokes and her predecessor Brandon Lewis, who told a Lords select committee:

"The only circumstances in which I can foresee someone not being granted settled status is either if the criminal records check clearly shows that they are a criminal, or if someone claims to be an EU citizen in the UK but is not, which would be a fraudulent application."

But now, very quietly, the Home Office have started changing their tune. Section EU15 of Appendix EU of the immigration rules (look under the section 'Suitability' in this link) has been changed to include a new category for denying someone settled status, as spotted by the eagle-eyed experts at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, who are now taking legal action in response.

The change is a subtle but important one. Settled status can now be denied to anyone who is currently facing deportation for not exercising their EEA treaty rights.

EEA treaty rights basically state that once you've been in another country in Europe for three months you need to be either working, studying or self-sufficient, so you're not a drain on public funds.

The government doesn't actively police this at all. But it does use it as a broad catch-all net to get rid of people it doesn't like. The Operation Nexus initiative by the Home Office and the police often uses treaty rights to target undesirables it can't find any other way to deport.

Sometimes it's beggars. Sometimes it's petty criminals who haven't committed a serious enough crime to warrant removal from the country. Sometimes it's victims of sex trafficking, who are often rough sleeping, without support and unable to go home, where the whole horrific cycle will begin again.

There are very few people who are deported according to this system. Hardly any EU citizens trying to get settled status are likely to be affected by this change in the rules. But then that's not the intention. The Home Office uses treaty rights not as a formal mechanism, but a legal discrimination provision. It affects so many people that it allows them to pick and choose who they target.

They could target the housewife of a rich banker with no comprehensive health insurance. But of course they do not. They target the homeless, the destitute and the desperate.

Even though very few people are likely to be affected by this, it is important in two respects.

Our letter has arrived at @10DowningStreet to be hand delivered by @NicolasHatton founder of @The3Million and Jane Golding Chair of @BritishInEurope.
We're one united family together for one cause. Guarantee #citizensrights for #the5million in case of a no-deal #Brexit. pic.twitter.com/YE23g9HslC

— British in Europe (@BritishInEurope) November 5, 2018

First, the Home Office is backsliding. It said that the only criteria for blocking settled status applications was a serious criminal offence. They said it in parliament. They said it in countless behind-the-scenes briefings with advocacy groups and journalists. And it was false. The EEA rights provision is not a criminal offence.

That promise has now been broken and it was done in a sneaky, underhand way. We don't know which other promises could follow, particularly in the case of no-deal.

Second, it raises questions about the treatment of vulnerable European immigrants, the ones who don't have smartphones and social media accounts.

We know that most people will be fine. They'll go on the app, secure their status and then forget about it. Years will pass. The final deadline, sometime after 2020 will come and go. The media attention will fade.

And then there will be problem cases. Illiterate or under-educated workers, in remote locations, who don't watch the news or read the paper. The homeless, or those with mental health problems. They'll have been within their rights to get settle status, but failed to keep to the timeframe. What happens then?

The Home Office could be active about trying to make sure they sign up within the time-window and understanding to those who do not. Or they could be sneaky and draconian about it. The change in the rules gives us a pretty good indication of which way they'll go.

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by snowychap

[blandy]

On 01/11/2018 at 18:11, peterms said:

But as you know, the views of the membership and those of the voters are not too well aligned on this, so there's a need to try to bring people along while alienating as few as possible.  That's pretty hard, and can't be done by issuing a line and expecting people to fall in behind it.

Back to Labour's timidity and difficulties. The context has changed

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-final-say-referendum-labour-leave-eu-jess-phillips-a8615011.html

Quote

Voters in every Labour area now support a Final Say referendum on the Brexit outcome, new research shows, piling fresh pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to back the idea.

The huge survey also found that a majority of Labour supporters in the Westminster seats the party holds back staying in the EU – despite claims that traditional supporters are still pro-Brexit.

It has prompted one senior Labour backbencher in a Leave-voting constituency to join the campaign for a fresh public vote, while a second said he was close to the same decision...

 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

EEA treaty rights basically state that once you've been in another country in Europe for three months you need to be either working, studying or self-sufficient, so you're not a drain on public funds.

The government doesn't actively police this at all. But it does use it as a broad catch-all net to get rid of people it doesn't like. The Operation Nexus initiative by the Home Office and the police often uses treaty rights to target undesirables it can't find any other way to deport.

Sometimes it's beggars. Sometimes it's petty criminals who haven't committed a serious enough crime to warrant removal from the country. Sometimes it's victims of sex trafficking, who are often rough sleeping, without support and unable to go home, where the whole horrific cycle will begin again.

To be honest, I'm struggling to drum up much outrage about this.

Does it show that the Government is a duplicitous, untrustworthy shambles? Yes of course, but pretty much everything this Government does shows that.

Is legally removing people from the country who don't have the right to be here, and focusing more on the ones causing problems than on the ones who aren't, really a big problem? Not for me.

Edited November 5, 2018 by ml1dch

[snowychap]

45 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

To be honest, I'm struggling to drum up much outrage about this.

I'm not surprised but then again I don't think anyone has required your 'outrage', have they?

Edited November 5, 2018 by snowychap

[ml1dch]

52 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm not surprised but then again I don't think anyone has required your 'outrage', have they?

Is such an aggressive tone really necessary?

[Chindie]

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Is such an aggressive tone really necessary?

I'm not responsible for what you read in to things.

[Chindie]

Supposedly this week signals the final week, as far as Westminster is concerned, for a deal to be done (no really this time. Honest). 

The argument is that this week marks the turning point for being able to prepare for a deal to be in place, or needing to prepare () for No Deal, due the parliamentary timetable, and also represents the last week an emergency EU leaders meeting can be scheduled. So apparently this week is likely to be very busy as they try to avoid the impending car crash.

Unfortunately the EU is pessimistic. They correctly argue the UK is still negotiating with itself, and therefore can't get a deal agreed.

So No Deal is coming. Thanks Brexiteers.

[Chindie]

Also for some final fun, remember the haulage permit thing? That could mean UK lorries wouldn't be licensed to drive on the continent? Remember who is in charge of the Department for Transport? Someone renowned for incompetence?

They've come up with a solution for those permits. It's a lottery!

Businesses will be rated on a variety of factors including the type of goods they're transporting and the number of international journeys they've taken, and then this will be subject to a 'random element of chance' as to whether you'll get a permit.

The official government position for haulage companies is 'best hope you're lucky'. You're literally looking at businesses futures being subject to a coin toss.

[chrisp65]

now we just have to decide who the Representative for Wellingborough is

[blandy]

56 minutes ago, Chindie said:

So No Deal is coming. Thanks Brexiteers.

Nah. It absolutely isn't.

No matter what, no deal will not happen. Because money. Because numbers.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Nah. It absolutely isn't.

No matter what, no deal will not happen. Because money. Because numbers.

I'd agree.

Except rational thought left the building 2 years ago and has only kept running away since.

Hopefully some sense can be found but No Deal absolutely can happen and is more likely to happen than many might line to think.

So yes, thanks Brexiteers. I look forward to your tears, they might be the only thing keeping me going.