Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
Richard Ratcliffe was interviewed on the radio yesterday and said that he thought Johnson's journalist training comments were far less unhelpful to her than the promise he made to pay the money back.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
He probably inadvertently told the truth about her visit to Iran, I'm sure it didn't help but I also don't think it's made any real difference. Ultimately what we have is someone who is an Iranian citizen being detained by Iran for breaking an Iranian law on teaching subversive ideas (in their view, not mine, of course). I'm not sure what we can really do about it except hope that they release her one day.
Her husband seems like a prize idiot, what we needed last time when her original sentence was ending was a silent diplomatic route to her release to allow both sides to save face but instead he went all over the news to get attention for himself and it was obvious that Iran wouldn't take that well but he kept ploughing on with his campaign all over the media and I'm pretty sure the path for Iran to quietly release her to house arrest and eventually freedom closed when he went on the news.
Perhaps. Obviously the British Gov't could never admit this.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
She's British too, you know! Unless you want to go down the Indian path and ban dual citizenship?
Iran does the same as India iirc, for their purposes she's an Iranian citizen. You have to do what my mum did her Indian citizenship and relinquish it entirely but loads of Iranians (and Indians) don't because it means visa costs and hassle at the border vs travelling as a returning citizen.
While it might not seem like a big deal in international terms it makes a huge difference because the Iranians are detaining an Iranian national and Iran doesn't recognise dual nationality.
South Africa and the US are the same (as Mr Johnson discovered). If you are a dual national, you must enter the country with your domestic passport, and you will be treated as a national should any issues ever occur.
(I have a friend who is an Iranian-British citizen - born & lived all his life in the UK - and he has tried for years to get rid of his Iranian citizenship, but is extremely difficult.)
BTW, another round of applause for RSA scaring off some of the best cricketers in the world. Conway's early career stats across all formats are unbelievable - shame he didn't emigrate here.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
Corbyn stopped Starmer taking a second job doing high-paid consultancy work for law firm Mishcon de Reya in 2017, several key figures from the Corbyn leadership have confirmed to me.
Starmer argued he should be free to take up the role, but Corbyn decided "absolutely no."
Starmer has tried to capitalise on Tory sleaze despite ditching Labour's 2019 pledge to ban MPs' second jobs.
Yet sources say Starmer wanted to take a lucrative second job while in the shadow cabinet, was blocked by Corbyn, and then pretended otherwise.
The matter was raised at a meeting of the shadow cabinet, where "Jeremy very politely reminded Keir what Labour Party policy was," according to a senior member of Corbyn's shadow ministerial team.
Starmer's office had argued there was nothing to worry about in him taking the job, because the Mishcon training academy, which he would be advising, was "really cool."
When the issue blew up & the Tories attacked (Mishcon represented Gina Miller, Starmer's brief was Brexit), Starmer wanted to stick with Mishcon's words that "We are in discussions with Keir Starmer about reappointing him as an adviser" & say it was a limited role—ie ride it out.
However, the job was vetoed, whereupon Starmer switched to claim it was his decision, saying "I am grateful for Mischon de Reya for discussing a possible role advising the Mishcon Academy with me but given my other commitments, I have decided not to further the discussions."
Fast forward to Monday. Starmer tried to take the high ground on sleaze by quoting 2015 Labour policy that "paid consultancies ought to go."
@SamCoatesSky said "You were in talks to take a job yourself."
Starmer said "No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Viewers got no sense from Starmer's response that, if not for Corbyn, he would have taken that job. In fact, not only was he in talks/discussions (potato/potato) with Mishcon in 2017, but he'd worked for them in 2016—while a Labour MP—getting paid £4,500 a month for 6 hours' work
In the Sky interview Starmer described Ed Miliband's 2015 policy banning MPs from taking paid consultancy jobs as "an obvious change we ought to make straight away," which begs the question why it wasn't so obvious to him in 2016.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is challenged by @SamCoatesSky about the roles he considered taking while a MP.
Unwilling to answer the Mishcon question, Starmer deflected onto the matter of MPs giving legal advice, saying he had given up his legal certificate two years ago. But even this is murky, as he has recently registered large sums with no transparency about who has paid him.
It is striking, given Starmer's conduct towards Corbyn since last autumn, that back in 2017 Corbyn's office didn't brief against Starmer, or criticise him, but let him present the decision as his own.
It now emerges that Starmer has Corbyn to thank for saving him from himself.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
She's British too, you know! Unless you want to go down the Indian path and ban dual citizenship?
Iran does the same as India iirc, for their purposes she's an Iranian citizen. You have to do what my mum did her Indian citizenship and relinquish it entirely but loads of Iranians (and Indians) don't because it means visa costs and hassle at the border vs travelling as a returning citizen.
While it might not seem like a big deal in international terms it makes a huge difference because the Iranians are detaining an Iranian national and Iran doesn't recognise dual nationality.
South Africa and the US are the same (as Mr Johnson discovered). If you are a dual national, you must enter the country with your domestic passport, and you will be treated as a national should any issues ever occur.
(I have a friend who is an Iranian-British citizen - born & lived all his life in the UK - and he has tried for years to get rid of his Iranian citizenship, but is extremely difficult.)
Yeah according to my mum getting rid of her Indian citizenship was a bureaucratic nightmare of waiting, letter writing, waiting and more letter writing.
England cases still down WoW despite schools being open, that's the effect of having that additional R budget available. Even if cases fall more slowly than when they were closed, we're still going to see falling cases over the next few weeks and then very, very big drops over the Xmas holidays.
There aren't many children still to catch it. And we're vaccinating that group. (And vaccination + infection is as good as it gets for preventing transmission.)
I wouldn't be surprised if - thanks to Delta - we never get to the sub-1,000/day that we had in the Summer of 2020. But that's OK. 2,000 people getting, but not getting particularly sick from, Covid is not the end of the world.
Plenty of informed estimates have the long run equilibrium level of infections for the UK at something like 10x that given how often people get flu in their lifetime despite widespread immunity, and how much more infectious this is. Regardless, it doesn't need to be a big problem anymore.
20,000 positive influenza tests per day on average? That means 7.3 million people get influenza every year in the UK. That seems high. (Possible, but high.)
Corbyn stopped Starmer taking a second job doing high-paid consultancy work for law firm Mishcon de Reya in 2017, several key figures from the Corbyn leadership have confirmed to me.
Starmer argued he should be free to take up the role, but Corbyn decided "absolutely no."
Starmer has tried to capitalise on Tory sleaze despite ditching Labour's 2019 pledge to ban MPs' second jobs.
Yet sources say Starmer wanted to take a lucrative second job while in the shadow cabinet, was blocked by Corbyn, and then pretended otherwise.
The matter was raised at a meeting of the shadow cabinet, where "Jeremy very politely reminded Keir what Labour Party policy was," according to a senior member of Corbyn's shadow ministerial team.
Starmer's office had argued there was nothing to worry about in him taking the job, because the Mishcon training academy, which he would be advising, was "really cool."
When the issue blew up & the Tories attacked (Mishcon represented Gina Miller, Starmer's brief was Brexit), Starmer wanted to stick with Mishcon's words that "We are in discussions with Keir Starmer about reappointing him as an adviser" & say it was a limited role—ie ride it out.
However, the job was vetoed, whereupon Starmer switched to claim it was his decision, saying "I am grateful for Mischon de Reya for discussing a possible role advising the Mishcon Academy with me but given my other commitments, I have decided not to further the discussions."
Fast forward to Monday. Starmer tried to take the high ground on sleaze by quoting 2015 Labour policy that "paid consultancies ought to go."
@SamCoatesSky said "You were in talks to take a job yourself."
Starmer said "No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Viewers got no sense from Starmer's response that, if not for Corbyn, he would have taken that job. In fact, not only was he in talks/discussions (potato/potato) with Mishcon in 2017, but he'd worked for them in 2016—while a Labour MP—getting paid £4,500 a month for 6 hours' work
In the Sky interview Starmer described Ed Miliband's 2015 policy banning MPs from taking paid consultancy jobs as "an obvious change we ought to make straight away," which begs the question why it wasn't so obvious to him in 2016.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is challenged by @SamCoatesSky about the roles he considered taking while a MP.
Unwilling to answer the Mishcon question, Starmer deflected onto the matter of MPs giving legal advice, saying he had given up his legal certificate two years ago. But even this is murky, as he has recently registered large sums with no transparency about who has paid him.
It is striking, given Starmer's conduct towards Corbyn since last autumn, that back in 2017 Corbyn's office didn't brief against Starmer, or criticise him, but let him present the decision as his own.
It now emerges that Starmer has Corbyn to thank for saving him from himself.
England cases still down WoW despite schools being open, that's the effect of having that additional R budget available. Even if cases fall more slowly than when they were closed, we're still going to see falling cases over the next few weeks and then very, very big drops over the Xmas holidays.
There aren't many children still to catch it. And we're vaccinating that group. (And vaccination + infection is as good as it gets for preventing transmission.)
I wouldn't be surprised if - thanks to Delta - we never get to the sub-1,000/day that we had in the Summer of 2020. But that's OK. 2,000 people getting, but not getting particularly sick from, Covid is not the end of the world.
Plenty of informed estimates have the long run equilibrium level of infections for the UK at something like 10x that given how often people get flu in their lifetime despite widespread immunity, and how much more infectious this is. Regardless, it doesn't need to be a big problem anymore.
20,000 positive influenza tests per day on average? That means 7.3 million people get influenza every year in the UK. That seems high. (Possible, but high.)
20k was the covid figure as it's more infectious - but even on that maths you're basically saying it's a 10 year waning cycle before people get it again.
That Starmer interview with Coates is not good. I like the way he says "No, I wasn't (a lie)" and then says "I was in discussion" I guess to be able to say that he clarified the lie.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
That Starmer interview with Coates is not good. I like the way he says "No, I wasn't (a lie)" and then says "I was in discussion" I guess to be able to say that he clarified the lie.
It's a very lawyerly distinction. It's where Starmer always falls down, he wants people to see the difference between two very similar shades of grey in the same way a judge might but voters don't really do that.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
2 crucial wickets combined with 17 off 10 (really 19 off 10 as there were 2 wides both caused by them not wanting to bowl anywhere near his body). Probably won't get MotM, but should. Arguably his batting alone is far more valuable than it looks given how much we needed an acceleration.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
She's British too, you know! Unless you want to go down the Indian path and ban dual citizenship?
Iran does the same as India iirc, for their purposes she's an Iranian citizen. You have to do what my mum did her Indian citizenship and relinquish it entirely but loads of Iranians (and Indians) don't because it means visa costs and hassle at the border vs travelling as a returning citizen.
While it might not seem like a big deal in international terms it makes a huge difference because the Iranians are detaining an Iranian national and Iran doesn't recognise dual nationality.
South Africa and the US are the same (as Mr Johnson discovered). If you are a dual national, you must enter the country with your domestic passport, and you will be treated as a national should any issues ever occur.
(I have a friend who is an Iranian-British citizen - born & lived all his life in the UK - and he has tried for years to get rid of his Iranian citizenship, but is extremely difficult.)
Yeah according to my mum getting rid of her Indian citizenship was a bureaucratic nightmare of waiting, letter writing, waiting and more letter writing.
I was a dual US/UK citizen.
I have been told that the basic legal construct for multiple citizenship is pretty much universal -
- When in a country of which you are a citizen, that country will nearly always regard you as only a citizen of that country. No other consular rights etc... - They may well not even recognise you other passport(s) as valid documents - You will be required to enter a country of which you are a citizen with the passport for that country. - When in a third country, your citizenship will generally be taken to be that of the country whose passport you used to enter the third country.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
Q: Will you say sorry for what happened last week?
A: Johnson says, since he is speaking in an international context, he wants to say the UK is not remotely corrupt. Today we have seen MPs maybe breaking the rules, he says. He says MPs who do break the rules should face punishment.
[Reminder: last week Johnson ordered his MPs to back an unprecedented motion to stop Owen Paterson from being punished for breaking the rules]
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
How many parsnips do high level interventions butter? At this point it's just pay or don't and we've made our choice.
Q: Will you say sorry for what happened last week?
A: Johnson says, since he is speaking in an international context, he wants to say the UK is not remotely corrupt. Today we have seen MPs maybe breaking the rules, he says. He says MPs who do break the rules should face punishment.
2 crucial wickets combined with 17 off 10 (really 19 off 10 as there were 2 wides both caused by them not wanting to bowl anywhere near his body). Probably won't get MotM, but should. Arguably his batting alone is far more valuable than it looks given how much we needed an acceleration.
Most important number is the measly 22 off the 24 balls he bowled.
Obviously the 2 wickets were vital in that, but the number of dots - 12 - was amazing.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
She's British too, you know! Unless you want to go down the Indian path and ban dual citizenship?
Iran does the same as India iirc, for their purposes she's an Iranian citizen. You have to do what my mum did her Indian citizenship and relinquish it entirely but loads of Iranians (and Indians) don't because it means visa costs and hassle at the border vs travelling as a returning citizen.
While it might not seem like a big deal in international terms it makes a huge difference because the Iranians are detaining an Iranian national and Iran doesn't recognise dual nationality.
South Africa and the US are the same (as Mr Johnson discovered). If you are a dual national, you must enter the country with your domestic passport, and you will be treated as a national should any issues ever occur.
(I have a friend who is an Iranian-British citizen - born & lived all his life in the UK - and he has tried for years to get rid of his Iranian citizenship, but is extremely difficult.)
Yeah according to my mum getting rid of her Indian citizenship was a bureaucratic nightmare of waiting, letter writing, waiting and more letter writing.
I was a dual US/UK citizen.
I have been told that the basic legal construct for multiple citizenship is pretty much universal -
- When in a country of which you are a citizen, that country will nearly always regard you as only a citizen of that country. No other consular rights etc... - They may well not even recognise you other passport(s) as valid documents - You will be required to enter a country of which you are a citizen with the passport for that country. - When in a third country, your citizenship will generally be taken to be that of the country whose passport you used to enter the third country.
AIUI this does not apply to a major category of actual or potential double citizenship much closer to home - people in NI as jointly Irish/UK - thanks to the GFA. Though HMG seems to be trying to take an Iranian or US style approach on such things as spouses and their immigration rights.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
There is little our Government can do when the one thing Iran needs to quietly release her is for her to disappears from the news so that she can be quietly released.
Her husband should have been (and I suspect was) told why silence was required and then instructed to keep quiet. Instead he's done everything in his power to make releasing her politically impossible for Iran.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
How many parsnips do high level interventions butter? At this point it's just pay or don't and we've made our choice.
Well, if she is to be abandoned, then expect her husband to kick up as much stink as he can.
Right now, we have the post Covid boom to boost the fortunes of the Conservative Party. How will that end? Will it be gradual slowing of the economy around full employment (which would be great), or will inflation shoot up, necessitating rising interest rates and a hard landing?
We know inflation is shooting up, and we know that central banks are crossing their fingers and hoping it's a short-term transient effect related to a post-pandemic bounce.
The worst-case scenario is that it isn't transient, inflation stays high (or goes higher), and central banks then have to increase interest rates a lot (after massive damage to savings).
What might cause a structural change to high inflation?
Two possibilities I think. First is structural changes to the economy as a result of the pandemic might cause imbalances that create inflation. More demand for computer chips for example.
Second is a reversal of globalisation.
That's spot on.
Imagine a world where - whenever demand grew too quickly - central banks had to slam the inflation brakes on. No one would offer multi-year fixed price mortgages, because it would be too risky. It would mean a return to people borrowing no more than 3.5x their income.
What would this mean?
Well, rising interest rates and inflation would be absolutely fantastic for people with fixed rate mortgages. I have a property with 2.5% fixed mortgage for five years. If inflation and interest rates were 15%, for three years, the value of my mortgage (in real terms) would drop almost 40%. And mortgage interest payments relative to income (or rent) would collapse. I would be "in the money".
On the other hand, people who have not gotten on the housing ladder would be hammered. Rents would rise with inflation, while the cost of getting a mortgage would rise, and banks willingness to lend drop. It would be particularly hard on people in their 20s.
Basically the young are fucked. We've had a decade of ultra low interest rates that's kept housing unaffordable (and made it worse in some parts of the country). And now we have inflation, we can't put up interest rates because that would also screw the young.
On the whole the group least affected by inflation are those without any cash assets at this moment but are employable in ways which tend to have a rising scale of payment over time. Or, to put it another way, young people.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
There is little our Government can do when the one thing Iran needs to quietly release her is for her to disappears from the news so that she can be quietly released.
Her husband should have been (and I suspect was) told why silence was required and then instructed to keep quiet. Instead he's done everything in his power to make releasing her politically impossible for Iran.
That excuse stinks a bit. She wasn't in the news until the hunger strike. If silence was going to help then why didn't she get released last year?
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
There is little our Government can do when the one thing Iran needs to quietly release her is for her to disappears from the news so that she can be quietly released.
Her husband should have been (and I suspect was) told why silence was required and then instructed to keep quiet. Instead he's done everything in his power to make releasing her politically impossible for Iran.
That excuse stinks a bit. She wasn't in the news until the hunger strike. If silence was going to help then why didn't she get released last year?
She's been in the news for months, every time anything vaguely occurs it makes the news.
Why is the People’s Vote campaign, set up to stop Brexit, so worried about this particular Iranian citizen?
It is rather shabby to refer to her as a “particular Iranian citizen”.
She is also a British citizen, married to a British citizen, with a British-born child.
She’s an Iranian citizen, currently in Iran, and international law of dual citizenship is quite clear on the point that the UK can do nothing about her except ask nicely - and we know the Iranians have no intention of responding positively.
Short of sending the SAS in to get her, very much against international law, there’s nothing the UK government can do.
We could pay the money that Iran say we owe. I’m not saying we should, but there are more options than the SAS.
Boris rather foolishly, when FS, made comments which undermined Nazanin’s case.
But her husband is now saying it is all about the money.
Maybe it is? I don’t know.
I do know that Boris “gaffed” and now the government appear to have washed their hands of her.
What I find unedifying is that the government's enemies have taken on this case as it is problematic for them (rather than them giving two fucks about her and her family).
They've egged Mr Ratcliffe on, when someone needs to put an arm around him and say to him "you've made your point, this isn't going to achieve anything."
Presumably he needs to “move on”. WTF?
No, but hurting himself won't get her freed.
I don’t dare to judge him. She has been imprisoned for 5 years.
I suspect his judgement is that she’s now served her time and it’s now just the money. What that belief is based on I don’t know.
It was ALWAYS the money. Thats the game they are playing. Attractive, dual national, with small child, female. What better way to put pressure on the UK government.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
I think that's where Iran have seen the opportunity. Thousands of British Iranian people return to Iran every year without incidence, it's quite likely that she was indeed arrested for teaching journalism at which point the political powers saw this opportunity to either make the government look really bad for not paying to release her or getting paid their money back.
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hard to see who the hunger strike is protesting other than against Britain for not paying up, as it's clearly a waste of time vs Iran.
I think it is that the FCO has lost interest. There were multiple serious interventions with the Iranians under May, none under Johnson.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
There is little our Government can do when the one thing Iran needs to quietly release her is for her to disappears from the news so that she can be quietly released.
Her husband should have been (and I suspect was) told why silence was required and then instructed to keep quiet. Instead he's done everything in his power to make releasing her politically impossible for Iran.
That excuse stinks a bit. She wasn't in the news until the hunger strike. If silence was going to help then why didn't she get released last year?
It’s only back in the news because the husband and his useful idiots in the continuity Remain campaign have put it back in the news. His wife isn’t going to be released by Iran, until she’s not in the news for long enough to arrange something diplomatically.
Comments
The CRICKET, not Covid
2/1 NZ according to Cricinfo predictor. That’s England 1.33 in Betfair parlance
(I have a friend who is an Iranian-British citizen - born & lived all his life in the UK - and he has tried for years to get rid of his Iranian citizenship, but is extremely difficult.)
It’s entirely British to not support England.
Max raises the possibility that Johnson did indeed speak the truth about her activities, and he may have been briefed on that, but surely needed to stick to the government line.
Starmer argued he should be free to take up the role, but Corbyn decided "absolutely no."
Starmer has tried to capitalise on Tory sleaze despite ditching Labour's 2019 pledge to ban MPs' second jobs.
Yet sources say Starmer wanted to take a lucrative second job while in the shadow cabinet, was blocked by Corbyn, and then pretended otherwise.
The matter was raised at a meeting of the shadow cabinet, where "Jeremy very politely reminded Keir what Labour Party policy was," according to a senior member of Corbyn's shadow ministerial team.
Starmer's office had argued there was nothing to worry about in him taking the job, because the Mishcon training academy, which he would be advising, was "really cool."
When the issue blew up & the Tories attacked (Mishcon represented Gina Miller, Starmer's brief was Brexit), Starmer wanted to stick with Mishcon's words that "We are in discussions with Keir Starmer about reappointing him as an adviser" & say it was a limited role—ie ride it out.
However, the job was vetoed, whereupon Starmer switched to claim it was his decision, saying "I am grateful for Mischon de Reya for discussing a possible role advising the Mishcon Academy with me but given my other commitments, I have decided not to further the discussions."
Fast forward to Monday. Starmer tried to take the high ground on sleaze by quoting 2015 Labour policy that "paid consultancies ought to go."
@SamCoatesSky said "You were in talks to take a job yourself."
Starmer said "No I wasn't. I was in discussion."
Viewers got no sense from Starmer's response that, if not for Corbyn, he would have taken that job. In fact, not only was he in talks/discussions (potato/potato) with Mishcon in 2017, but he'd worked for them in 2016—while a Labour MP—getting paid £4,500 a month for 6 hours' work
In the Sky interview Starmer described Ed Miliband's 2015 policy banning MPs from taking paid consultancy jobs as "an obvious change we ought to make straight away," which begs the question why it wasn't so obvious to him in 2016.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is challenged by @SamCoatesSky about the roles he considered taking while a MP.
Unwilling to answer the Mishcon question, Starmer deflected onto the matter of MPs giving legal advice, saying he had given up his legal certificate two years ago. But even this is murky, as he has recently registered large sums with no transparency about who has paid him.
It is striking, given Starmer's conduct towards Corbyn since last autumn, that back in 2017 Corbyn's office didn't brief against Starmer, or criticise him, but let him present the decision as his own.
It now emerges that Starmer has Corbyn to thank for saving him from himself.
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1458456612398632961
Nunns was a Corbyn speechwriter. but still..
Ultimately, I think the the best scenario is that the husband shuts up, the Iranians realise that this is a non-starter for the UK and they quietly release her to house arrest at which point we extract her into Azerbaijan or something like that and quietly fly her back to the UK. It saves face for both sides but I expect the husband will want to get on TV because he strikes me as a massive attention whore.
Hopeful signs yesterday's tick up is a blip, heading back down in the 25-65 group and the booster generation still looking fine.
Contrary to some people's desires, it really hasn't gone away yet.
It is interesting
I have been told that the basic legal construct for multiple citizenship is pretty much universal -
- When in a country of which you are a citizen, that country will nearly always regard you as only a citizen of that country. No other consular rights etc...
- They may well not even recognise you other passport(s) as valid documents
- You will be required to enter a country of which you are a citizen with the passport for that country.
- When in a third country, your citizenship will generally be taken to be that of the country whose passport you used to enter the third country.
If she is a spy (I doubt it) it isn't a great message to our spooks that we will let them rot, and if she isn't, then it is really shameful that our government has abandoned her.
A: Johnson says, since he is speaking in an international context, he wants to say the UK is not remotely corrupt. Today we have seen MPs maybe breaking the rules, he says. He says MPs who do break the rules should face punishment.
[Reminder: last week Johnson ordered his MPs to back an unprecedented motion to stop Owen Paterson from being punished for breaking the rules]
Obviously the 2 wickets were vital in that, but the number of dots - 12 - was amazing.
#Seer
Horrible feeling legs were down there on that 'catch'
Her husband should have been (and I suspect was) told why silence was required and then instructed to keep quiet. Instead he's done everything in his power to make releasing her politically impossible for Iran.
Edit: Nope, six.
As to housing being unaffordable, unless there is no market (like the market in the Elgin Marbles or York Minster) it is, despite all the rhetoric, subject to the ancient laws of supply and demand, and a house is worth precisely what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller accept. And, if my area is anything to go by, activity in this market is quite hot.
For 'unaffordable' read 'unsellable'.
GAME ON
NZ 1.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/icc-world-twenty20-2021/england-v-new-zealand-betting-31057636