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

[bickster]

43 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

How does bringing the deal back for to the house yet again work with the speakers judgment on bringing the same deal back repeatedly?

 

Different session of parliament anyway, iirc the rule was that it couldn't be brought back in the same session

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

I'd say that's a line of argument that doesn't help to reinforce your overall point.

If we reduce it to the level of "whatever MPs do =  the democratic embodiment of their constituents' wishes", then a majority of people don't want an election because a majority of their elected representatives don't.

Again, fair point. Like I said in the other post, it's a bit of a moot point as I am not a democrat so I am very cynical of our politicians and whether they represent us.

[Mic09]

31 minutes ago, bickster said:

Different session of parliament anyway, iirc the rule was that it couldn't be brought back in the same session

So essentially speaking everything is the same but the date? 

[bickster]

Just now, Mic09 said:

So essentially speaking everything is the same but the date? 

Well yes and no. The date of leaving is different, so that may pass the Speakers "Substantially different" test anyway, however, what I'm talking about is that even if the date of leaving hadn't changed, this can be brought back because it is now a different session of parliament. The speakers ruling was that bills could  not be brought back repeatedly unless they were substantially different in the same parliamentary session.

Quote

A Parliament is the period of parliamentary time between one general election and the next. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 sets the interval between general elections at five years.

Each Parliament is usually divided into five parliamentary years called ‘sessions’, beginning and ending in the spring. A sitting is a meeting of either House at the end of which the House adjourns (pauses) until the next sitting. A sitting is also used as a term for a meeting of a committee.

parliament.uk

[chrisp65]

They've ruled out a fifth go, in the crazy scenario of the fourth attempt not working.

I think they're worried about the damage to the party if she tries for five and is sectioned live on TV.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

it is now a different session of parliament

It's still the same session of Parliament that began with the Queen's Speech after the 2017 election.

It's the longest session of Parliament since the Civil War according to the Commons Library:

Quote

Is this the longest parliamentary session ever?

May 10, 2019 Edward Hicks

On 7 May 2019 the current parliamentary session reached a striking landmark. It became the longest session by sitting days since the English Civil War (1642-51). It was already unusual, having lasted over three different calendar years, beginning on 13 June 2017. As of Friday (10 May 2019) it has run for 298 sitting days, and 2,657 hours and 56 minutes.

... more

 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

It's still the same session of Parliament that began with the Queen's Speech after the 2017 election.

It's the longest session of Parliament since the Civil War according to the Commons Library:

 

Yep you're right, I just presumed they were being normal, I should have known better

[chrisp65]

BBC Politics show just showcased the parties standing for europe - next week.

They went through each party and explained whether it was leave or remain.

Except Labour. They asked the Labour rep if they were leave or remain, and they got the answer 'we are on the side of the people'.  Which solicited the follow up question, yes but if someone asks, are you for leave or remain, are you pro brexit. To which the answer was 'its not all about Brexit'.

 

8 days before a european election. We aren't going to tell you our position, it's not all about Brexit.

 

 

 

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

BBC Politics show just showcased the parties standing for europe - next week.

They went through each party and explained whether it was leave or remain.

Except Labour. They asked the Labour rep if they were leave or remain, and they got the answer 'we are on the side of the people'.  Which solicited the follow up question, yes but if someone asks, are you for leave or remain, are you pro brexit. To which the answer was 'its not all about Brexit'.

 

8 days before a european election. We aren't going to tell you our position, it's not all about Brexit.

 

 

 

Their leaflet came through my door this morning , under Claims of negotiating a better deal with the EU than the one currently on the table it said something like our preferences are a better deal , a General election and if all those fail then a people’s vote 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

Hard to see why any Tory backbencher would be moving to support her deal when Farage's lot are 10% ahead of them in some polls. If anything, it's much more likely that more are drifting away again. 

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

Their leaflet came through my door this morning , under Claims of negotiating a better deal with the EU than the one currently on the table it said something like our preferences are a better deal , a General election and if all those fail then a people’s vote 

yes, that's my reading of their European Elections manifesto on their website

it makes them a leave party

There, simple.

 

[snowychap]

Big Home Office policy change: Zambrano carers need to make a human rights application first

Quote

On 2 May 2019, the Home Office published updated guidance on “derivative rights of residence”, which includes the rights of Zambrano carers. Buried in the 63-page document is a fundamental change of policy: potential Zambrano applicants must first make a human rights application under British immigration law. In other words, applicants no longer have a choice between using Zambrano or using the UK Immigration Rules; they must do the latter first if eligible, or will have their Zambrano applications refused.

Zambrano rights of residence

Following the landmark Zambrano judgment, the primary carer of a British citizen living in the UK derives a right to reside if their removal from the UK would compel the British citizen to leave the European Union. That right to reside is a matter of EU law, rather than UK law.

In the case of Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2028, which we covered shortly after the judgment was published, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Zambrano applicants need to show that their British family member would be compelled to leave. Although I concluded my post by saying “the main lesson to take from Patel is that, wherever possible, applicants might be well advised to argue their case on a different basis than Zambrano”, I was not expecting the Home Office to force applicants to make an application on a different basis than Zambrano.

But the department has zeroed in on paragraph 76 of the Patel judgment, which says that:

The Zambrano principle cannot be regarded as a back-door route to residence by such non-EU citizen parents.

And changed its guidance to say that a Zambrano application must be refused if the applicant:

– has never made an application under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules or any other Article 8 ECHR claim, where that avenue is available

– has been refused under Appendix FM or Article 8 ECHR but their circumstances have changed since the decision was made – for example, the applicant applied on the basis of their relationship with a British spouse, but the couple now have a British child

It goes on to say:

Applicants being refused because it is open to them to apply under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules should be directed to the information available at www.gov.uk/uk-family-visa.

If an applicant has made an application under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules or any other Article 8 ECHR claim, and they were refused and exhausted their appeal rights recently, you must consider whether a derivative right of residence exists following the caseworking steps outlined in this guidance.

In addition, the part of the guidance about assessing whether a primary carer already has leave to remain in the UK states:

You must consider whether the applicant either already has leave to enter or remain in the UK, or if they could make an alternative application for leave to remain in the UK.

If alternative leave to enter or remain is held, or other avenues for leave are available, the British citizen would not be forced to leave the UK, and the EEA. The application for a derivative residence card must therefore be refused.

What does this mean in practice?

We may see litigation as to the lawfulness of this new policy. In the meantime, however, immigration practitioners and potential applicants must change their practice.

It used to be the case that you could assess the pros and cons of making a Zambrano application under EU law and a human rights application. Some of the relevant factors included the price of the application (£65 for an EEA application versus £2,000+ for an application under the Immigration Rules); and the ability to get indefinite leave to remain (Zambrano did not lead to settlement). We can forget about making these considerations; if an applicant can apply under the Immigration Rules, they must do so.

It is also difficult to see scenarios where you could not apply under human rights laws. After all, even if an applicant does not meet the Immigration Rules, if they are the carer of a British citizen their removal from the UK would violate their Article 8 rights and it will be open to them to make an application outside the Rules on that basis. The Home Office guidance suggests this is what they should do, referring to “an application under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules or any other Article 8 ECHR claim”.

Applicants who used to chose the Zambrano route because they could not afford the Home Office fee will need to consider applying for a fee waiver.

Why the change?

It is difficult not to be cynical about the reasoning behind this change. For one thing, the Home Office will, very simply, make a lot more money.

Another possible reason is to prevent Zambrano applicants from making use of the EU Settlement Scheme, which is free and fairly permissive. On the face of it, the Settlement Scheme allows Zambrano carers to apply for settled status after five years’ residence in the UK (or pre-settled status if they don’t have five years). This was, we thought, an improvement on the current situation, where the Zambrano route does not lead to settlement.

But I think that a potential Zambrano applicant trying to use the Settlement Scheme would be told to make an Appendix FM or other Article 8 application first. The guidance says:

A derivative right to reside is only available to an applicant who has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK as the primary carer of a dependent British citizen, or a dependent of that primary carer.

The rules for the Settlement Scheme also say that Zambrano carers are only eligible to apply for settled status if “they do not have leave to enter or remain in the UK granted under another part of the Rules”.

So the Home Office is effectively closing the door to settled status to all those would-be Zambrano carers who do not already have a residence card confirming their derivative right to reside.

We were, incidentally, expecting the Home Office to publish guidance specifically on Zambrano applications under the Settlement Scheme. The general caseworker guidance for the scheme says:

Further guidance on applying as a person with a Zambrano right to reside will be published on 1 May 2019.

But no guidance has appeared. When we contacted the Settlement Scheme helpline on 9 May to ask about it, they said that this wording was misleading and that there would be no document issued. The reference to “guidance” just means that when a potential Zambrano applicant contacts the helpline to request a copy of the paper application form that they have to use, which became available from 1 May, they will be given guidance over the phone about how to apply.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by snowychap

[NurembergVillan]

 

[Demitri_C]

So who is everyone voting for in European elections? 

[desensitized43]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

So who is everyone voting for in European elections? 

Lib Dem (holding my nose slightly as I do so)

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Lib Dem (holding my nose slightly as I do so)

Same as me

[Chindie]

Genuinely don't know.

I usually spoil my ballot. But I care enough about Remain that I'm prepared to back a party this time. But I don't really like any of parties that are expressly Remain. The Lib Dems burnt any faith in 2010, Chukka's Not Party I can't vote for and the Greens I usually don't quite align with. Plus with the different way that EP elections work you need to account for the maths of it all. And a minor consideration is also the European party affiliations and the 'Spitzenkandidat' process, which would mean if you wanted to Remain AND have the EU change in direction you'd need to account for the 'group' your MEP party would join up with - if you want the EU to shift left if we Remain the Lib Dems don't help, but equally if you want to Remain and your region would rather cut it's eyelids off than vote Green then you're going to need to evaluate your priorities.

I'll have to research how the West Midlands has voted previously. Ignoring the UKIP stuff obviously.

[Mozzavfc]

Lib dems

The wife will probably vote Greens 

[desensitized43]

40 minutes ago, Mozzavfc said:

Lib dems

The wife will probably vote Greens 

I do have a major worry that we're going to see more people by numbers vote for "remain" parties but still end up with Farage's Fascists.

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

So who is everyone voting for in European elections? 

There are a number of parties for which I'm certain I wouldn't vote - Tories, Labour, FF (Farage's ****) - but not sure for whom I will vote/if I will.

Off to a local hustings on Sunday. At the moment only the Lib Dems and Greens have accepted invites, apparently.