And before anyone replies with the phrase "stopped clock" I know that. But what he says is still right. The government is introducing some appallingly illiberal and pernicious legislation.
The comment underneath about Afghanistan's money is appropriate, too!
And if you think this is a matter of a few cancellations think again - U.K. Hospitality estimates that turnover in December will be down by 40%. Theatres too and other entertainment venues are affected too. This month is one where many such venues make the money that helps them live the rest of the year.
And yet for all the sound and fury at Westminster I can't think of one MP who has bothered to raise this issue.
Lib Dems have repeatedly raised this, especially Daisy Cooper.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
| NEW: Government scientists expect Britain will have between 300,000 and 400,000 new Omicron infections today
SGTF (Suspected Omicron) is probably around 28% today (Extrapolating forward from the daily update). Moving case average ~ 48,500. That's around 13.8k Omicron suspected cases today. Allowing for some uplift, maybe 16k. How do they get to 300, 400k ?!
Edit: I mean the dashboard, daily briefings - the actual written stuff is very very good and rigourous but the crap they come out with in the Commons and to the media...
If this is true, and if the immunity escape is sufficient to send a dangerous percentage of infections to hospital, then the NHS is overwhelmed between Christmas and New Year's.
Or they get to announce that the booster vaccinations saved the NHS.
My guess is the latter.
The numbers might be true in a few weeks time. They're not true now.
| NEW: Government scientists expect Britain will have between 300,000 and 400,000 new Omicron infections today
SGTF (Suspected Omicron) is probably around 28% today (Extrapolating forward from the daily update). Moving case average ~ 48,500. That's around 13.8k Omicron suspected cases today. Allowing for some uplift, maybe 16k. How do they get to 300, 400k ?!
Edit: I mean the dashboard, daily briefings - the actual written stuff is very very good and rigourous but the crap they come out with in the Commons and to the media...
If this is true, and if the immunity escape is sufficient to send a dangerous percentage of infections to hospital, then the NHS is overwhelmed between Christmas and New Year's.
Or they get to announce that the booster vaccinations saved the NHS.
My guess is the latter.
Yep. This whole process is designed to allow them to claim they averted a massive crisis through their quick and decisive action. Its bullshit of course but that is what they will say.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
How is it a breach to ask people who have pre-settled status to demonstrate they've remained in this country if they want to make that settled status permanent?
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
Sorry to hear this. Hope it goes well in next few days.
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
All the best Max to you and your wife, I hope you both get well soon.
| NEW: Government scientists expect Britain will have between 300,000 and 400,000 new Omicron infections today
SGTF (Suspected Omicron) is probably around 28% today (Extrapolating forward from the daily update). Moving case average ~ 48,500. That's around 13.8k Omicron suspected cases today. Allowing for some uplift, maybe 16k. How do they get to 300, 400k ?!
Edit: I mean the dashboard, daily briefings - the actual written stuff is very very good and rigourous but the crap they come out with in the Commons and to the media...
If this is true, and if the immunity escape is sufficient to send a dangerous percentage of infections to hospital, then the NHS is overwhelmed between Christmas and New Year's.
Or they get to announce that the booster vaccinations saved the NHS.
My guess is the latter.
Yep. This whole process is designed to allow them to claim they averted a massive crisis through their quick and decisive action. Its bullshit of course but that is what they will say.
It may not be bullshit.
I think there is a very, very reasonable chance that in January we're going to see lockdowns all over continental Europe but disaster averted in England. Not sure whether Drakeford or Sturgeon will hold their nerve or not.
Between the boosters and the fact that we had the exit wave I think that is enough to avert disaster - but I think disaster would have come without those.
| NEW: Government scientists expect Britain will have between 300,000 and 400,000 new Omicron infections today
SGTF (Suspected Omicron) is probably around 28% today (Extrapolating forward from the daily update). Moving case average ~ 48,500. That's around 13.8k Omicron suspected cases today. Allowing for some uplift, maybe 16k. How do they get to 300, 400k ?!
Edit: I mean the dashboard, daily briefings - the actual written stuff is very very good and rigourous but the crap they come out with in the Commons and to the media...
If this is true, and if the immunity escape is sufficient to send a dangerous percentage of infections to hospital, then the NHS is overwhelmed between Christmas and New Year's.
Or they get to announce that the booster vaccinations saved the NHS.
My guess is the latter.
Yep. This whole process is designed to allow them to claim they averted a massive crisis through their quick and decisive action. Its bullshit of course but that is what they will say.
"the NHS is overwhelmed between Christmas and New Year's."
As Lilico has been arguing - if this is true, then shield the vulnerable until 6th Jan and we are done.
He's proposing an extra Bank Holiday for a 2nd xmas on 6th.
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
Professor Robert Dingwall: "My gut feeling is that omicron is very much like the sort of flu pandemic we planned for – a lot of sickness absence from work in a short period, which will create difficulties for public services and economic activity, but not of such a severity as to be a big problem for the NHS and the funeral business.”
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
How is it a breach to ask people who have pre-settled status to demonstrate they've remained in this country if they want to make that settled status permanent?
What clause is breached?
The issue is this: what Patel is proposing is not simply that EU citizens do not get permanent residence at the end of the 5-year period. But that they lose their existing rights to live and work here and could be liable to deportation unless they reapply for their existing status.
There is an Independent Monitoring Group set up under the WA to monitor U.K. compliance with this aspect of the Agreement and it is they who have raised this concern. They say that this is contrary to the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU which specifically protects the existing rights of EU citizens in the country. Any breach of the WA is determined by the ECJ.
You can see Boris Johnson's attack lines on Keir Starmer at the next general election (if Boris is still in charge) - tying the Labour leader to the EU at every opportunity, however tenuous the link #PMQs
Omicron replicates 70x better than delta in nose and throat, but 10x worse in lungs.
There we have it - mechanism that explains the faster spread and the milder illness.
Thats why the SA Doctors have been talking about the difference between Delta and Omicron patients and the difference in the requirement for oxygen. Dr Coetzee said yesterday that when a Delta patient presented it was awful as she knew the person was in trouble, with Omicron it aches and pains.
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
Best wishes to you both. Hope it is not too nasty for you.
| NEW: Government scientists expect Britain will have between 300,000 and 400,000 new Omicron infections today
SGTF (Suspected Omicron) is probably around 28% today (Extrapolating forward from the daily update). Moving case average ~ 48,500. That's around 13.8k Omicron suspected cases today. Allowing for some uplift, maybe 16k. How do they get to 300, 400k ?!
Edit: I mean the dashboard, daily briefings - the actual written stuff is very very good and rigourous but the crap they come out with in the Commons and to the media...
If this is true, and if the immunity escape is sufficient to send a dangerous percentage of infections to hospital, then the NHS is overwhelmed between Christmas and New Year's.
Or they get to announce that the booster vaccinations saved the NHS.
My guess is the latter.
Yep. This whole process is designed to allow them to claim they averted a massive crisis through their quick and decisive action. Its bullshit of course but that is what they will say.
It may not be bullshit.
I think there is a very, very reasonable chance that in January we're going to see lockdowns all over continental Europe but disaster averted in England. Not sure whether Drakeford or Sturgeon will hold their nerve or not.
Between the boosters and the fact that we had the exit wave I think that is enough to avert disaster - but I think disaster would have come without those.
Might still be a disaster in London. 1/3 of peeps are totally unvaccinated.
| NEW: Government scientists expect Britain will have between 300,000 and 400,000 new Omicron infections today
SGTF (Suspected Omicron) is probably around 28% today (Extrapolating forward from the daily update). Moving case average ~ 48,500. That's around 13.8k Omicron suspected cases today. Allowing for some uplift, maybe 16k. How do they get to 300, 400k ?!
Edit: I mean the dashboard, daily briefings - the actual written stuff is very very good and rigourous but the crap they come out with in the Commons and to the media...
It is trust shattering. I'm doing my best to ignore it.
Just bigger and bigger numbers to try and terrify the public without the need for statutory measures I think
Moving case average is really out of date though... People infected today, are going to show up in next week's numbers by the time they have symptoms and then get tested and then get the result.
And if this thing is doubling every 2 days, then that makes a huge difference to the numbers?
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
The proportion of the population without a single jab is three times as high in London as in the country as a whole
Relies on assumptions are population which may not be true if people have headed elsewhere for the pandemic. But there is clearly a gap, and hopefully the communities driving it are as scared of hospitals as they are of needles and keep it to themselves.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
How is it a breach to ask people who have pre-settled status to demonstrate they've remained in this country if they want to make that settled status permanent?
What clause is breached?
The issue is this: what Patel is proposing is not simply that EU citizens do not get permanent residence at the end of the 5-year period. But that they lose their existing rights to live and work here and could be liable to deportation unless they reapply for their existing status.
Isn't that the case with all immigrants applying for permanent settlement? It's a few years since I was involved in it but "leave to remains" to need to be re-applied for until "indefinite leave to remain" (or what ever its current equivalent) is obtained. If you don't keep your immigration status up to date you can get into problems - but to go back, is the suggestion that pre-settled EU citizens be automatically given settled status, whether they've been in the UK or not? If not, what is being suggested?
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
How is it a breach to ask people who have pre-settled status to demonstrate they've remained in this country if they want to make that settled status permanent?
What clause is breached?
The issue is this: what Patel is proposing is not simply that EU citizens do not get permanent residence at the end of the 5-year period. But that they lose their existing rights to live and work here and could be liable to deportation unless they reapply for their existing status.
There is an Independent Monitoring Group set up under the WA to monitor U.K. compliance with this aspect of the Agreement and it is they who have raised this concern. They say that this is contrary to the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU which specifically protects the existing rights of EU citizens in the country. Any breach of the WA is determined by the ECJ.
Applying for settled status was a condition of the agreement.
Pre-settled status was granted as an interim for people who hadn't met the conditions.
Why shouldn't those who've got pre-settled status apply for full settled status at the end of the temporary status?
Are you saying that having temporary status should never expire?
The proportion of the population without a single jab is three times as high in London as in the country as a whole
Same old issue of ONS for UK stats and NIMS for local area stats. The true number in London for 12+ by ONS is about 80% with one dose and 75% with two and there's a lot of natural immunity in London as well.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
Omicron replicates 70x better than delta in nose and throat, but 10x worse in lungs.
There we have it - mechanism that explains the faster spread and the milder illness.
It may just be hopium, but it's something that had at least been hinted at by some scientists - that the vaccine efficacy against deep system infection and pneumonia might drive the virus to evolve to focus on the upper respiratory tract. i.e. become more like a cold. Let's hope there is something in it.
@RochdalePioneers Any ideas where Duguid was today? Doesn't seem to have voted. Do you know whether he was paired, abstaining, hiding in a freezer?
Apparently all the Scottish Tories abstained.
Very interesting. Douglas Ross - like his predecessor Ruth Davidson - looks down his nose at The Clown. By abstaining, the Scottish Tory group have achieved 4 goals:
a) looking principled, by not voting on England-only legislation (following the SNP lead)
b) not backing measures in England which they (supposedly) oppose in Scotland
c) they avoid taking sides in the incipient Tory civil war
d) most importantly, thumping The Clown in the goolies. He has made life hell for Scottish Tories and Unionists, and they relish the chance to damage him, hopefully terminally
Do you think he cares about them? It's surely their fault that the Scots don't bedeck Mr Johnson's path with rose-petals on his occasional triumphal processes up here. And the ScoTories chose Ms Davidson as leader - far, far too similar to him in certain crucial ways to be anything other than a dangerous rival on the UK stage.
Worth remembering that Douglas Ross resigned as a junior minister over the Cummings trip to Co Durham. He's used his Westminster mandate to reinforce his image as someone who is prepared to buck the party line. Useful reputation to have at Holyrood for obvious reasons. NB: I believe he has said that he will not be seeking re-election to Westminster. And yes, Boris out would be v good news for Scottish Tories, although I suspect they may be hoping in vain for some time to come.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
And before anyone replies with the phrase "stopped clock" I know that. But what he says is still right. The government is introducing some appallingly illiberal and pernicious legislation.
This is an incredibly worrying development post Brexit. This is why a Johnson landslide was more dangerous than a Corbyn minority. I detest Corbyn with a passion, but on this I agree with the stupid old Soviet fool.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
So it clearly requires people to demonstrate five years of continuous residency.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
The IMA, however, argues this policy is unlawful because it breaches the citizens’ rights provisions of the Brexit divorce deal, which do not provide for loss of status in such circumstances...
Well over 2 million people. This is not a minor piece of bureaucratic pettifoggery.
Professor Robert Dingwall: "My gut feeling is that omicron is very much like the sort of flu pandemic we planned for – a lot of sickness absence from work in a short period, which will create difficulties for public services and economic activity, but not of such a severity as to be a big problem for the NHS and the funeral business.”
Telegraph
He's a Professor of Sociology - how does Sociology tell you how a newly discovered variant works in the real world?
Bad luck @MaxPB Trust you will be afforded a few days off work to get through some box sets and have your Deliveroo Premium activated.
Yeah I've been told to take some time off but in all honesty I feel fine and I'm off from Friday anyway. Need to organise food delivery for the next few days though. Hopefully Waitrose have got slots.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
So, basically either our or the EU's representatives who drew up the agreement didn't realise what they were signing.
I realise that as a Remainer I'm prejudiced, but I'm inclined to believe the EU side. It's been obvious so far that the British side didn't know what they were doing. 'No border in the Irish Sea" and so on.
More SAGE members talking to the media, Jenny Harries saying staggering number of cases and NHS could well be overwhelmed, COBRA meeting shortly.....
Lockdown incoming?
Where is the evidence of "staggering number" of cases?
WTF are they? The # last night off top of my head was ≈ 55K.
Roughly same as it has been for weeks, give or take.
Have you not seen the "model".....we at a billion cases as day now on their predictions?
More seriously, I imagine they are seeing a big uptick in positivity rates and number of tests being booked etc and extrapolating from that. I think the eggheads get to see a sample of the testing numbers before the full data sets are released (which are always couple of days back).
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
The proportion of the population without a single jab is three times as high in London as in the country as a whole
Same old issue of ONS for UK stats and NIMS for local area stats. The true number in London for 12+ by ONS is about 80% with one dose and 75% with two and there's a lot of natural immunity in London as well.
I generated the data (see blow) using ONS mid-2020* vs the number of vaccinations
*Used the provided vaccination service numbers to fill in some gaps in ONS-2020 and correct the silly 100%+ thing in the 70-74 age group.
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
What it does mean is that Labour won't be voting with the Government again this Parliament - so when the next rebellion occurs Boris will lose.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
So, basically either our or the EU's representatives who drew up the agreement didn't realise what they were signing.
I realise that as a Remainer I'm prejudiced, but I'm inclined to believe the EU side. It's been obvious so far that the British side didn't know what they were doing. 'No border in the Irish Sea" and so on.
I quoted the relevant section of the treaty. It seems clear that there is a requirement to demonstrate five years of continuous residency before permanent residency is granted.
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
What it does mean is that Labour won't be voting with the Government again this Parliament - so when the next rebellion occurs Boris will lose.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
Nah, no chance Starmer blocks a lockdown request from PM.
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
What it does mean is that Labour won't be voting with the Government again this Parliament - so when the next rebellion occurs Boris will lose.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
Didn't Starmer just say Labour would continue to vote for restrictions if needed? Admittedly it might have been a joke...
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
So it clearly requires people to demonstrate five years of continuous residency.
Once more. The issue is not what is required to get some other status.
But the consequences of not reapplying for the existing status and whether what is proposed is a breach of the agreement.
Professor Robert Dingwall: "My gut feeling is that omicron is very much like the sort of flu pandemic we planned for – a lot of sickness absence from work in a short period, which will create difficulties for public services and economic activity, but not of such a severity as to be a big problem for the NHS and the funeral business.”
Telegraph
He's a Professor of Sociology - how does Sociology tell you how a newly discovered variant works in the real world?
Quite so. But the "other" side have regularly been platforming behavioural psychologists like Michie and Reicher.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
So it clearly requires people to demonstrate five years of continuous residency.
Once more. The issue is not what is required to get some other status.
But the consequences of not reapplying for the existing status and whether what is proposed is a breach of the agreement.
From the agreement:
Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host State for a period exceeding 5 consecutive years.
Pre-settled status is temporary, not permanent residency:
How long is Pre-Settled status granted for? Pre-Settled Status is granted for a 5-year period, irrespective of how long a person has resided in the UK. A person who has been in the UK for only 1 day will get a five year grant of pre-Settled Status, just the same as a person who has resided for 4 years.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
So it clearly requires people to demonstrate five years of continuous residency.
Once more. The issue is not what is required to get some other status.
But the consequences of not reapplying for the existing status and whether what is proposed is a breach of the agreement.
All references I can find to pre-settled status on the EU's own website refers to having to subsequently apply for settled status.
What's the alternative? Are you suggesting that pre-settled status should never, ever expire? If so, then isn't that settled status?
Surely the whole point of pre-settled status is that it was a temporary interim until settled status was applied for and if it isn't applied for then surely pre-settled status should ultimately expire?
Professor Robert Dingwall: "My gut feeling is that omicron is very much like the sort of flu pandemic we planned for – a lot of sickness absence from work in a short period, which will create difficulties for public services and economic activity, but not of such a severity as to be a big problem for the NHS and the funeral business.”
Telegraph
He's a Professor of Sociology - how does Sociology tell you how a newly discovered variant works in the real world?
Quite so. But the "other" side have regularly been platforming behavioural psychologists like Michie and Reicher.
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
If they've been resident here for five years then they qualify. Missing a paperwork deadline doesn't invalidate their residency.
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
Professor Robert Dingwall: "My gut feeling is that omicron is very much like the sort of flu pandemic we planned for – a lot of sickness absence from work in a short period, which will create difficulties for public services and economic activity, but not of such a severity as to be a big problem for the NHS and the funeral business.”
Telegraph
He's a Professor of Sociology - how does Sociology tell you how a newly discovered variant works in the real world?
Quite so. But the "other" side have regularly been platforming behavioural psychologists like Michie and Reicher.
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
What it does mean is that Labour won't be voting with the Government again this Parliament - so when the next rebellion occurs Boris will lose.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
Nah, no chance Starmer blocks a lockdown request from PM.
Boris would no longer be PM or Tory leader if he made a lockdown request anyway. A majority of Tory MPs would VONC him beforehand
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
If they've been resident here for five years then they qualify. Missing a paperwork deadline doesn't invalidate their residency.
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
Of course there has to be a deadline, and it was clear from the start. Pre-settled status is for five years. Enough time to build up your five years of continuous residence to apply for settled status.
Pre-settled status EU citizens are automatically granted settled status at the end of 5 years?
Even if they've spent some or all of that abroad?
Why should EU citizens be treated differently to citizens from other countries who have to prove their residence when applying for permanent residence?
Because it's a breach of the agreement with the EU?
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
It is because it is a breach of the agreement with the EU, but also that agreement is effectively an agreement with millions of our neighbours, friends, co-workers, relatives, suppliers, customers. That we renege on such key agreements so casually and quickly is shameful.
How is the agreement breached?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
So it clearly requires people to demonstrate five years of continuous residency.
Once more. The issue is not what is required to get some other status.
But the consequences of not reapplying for the existing status and whether what is proposed is a breach of the agreement.
From the agreement:
Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host State for a period exceeding 5 consecutive years.
Pre-settled status is temporary, not permanent residency:
How long is Pre-Settled status granted for? Pre-Settled Status is granted for a 5-year period, irrespective of how long a person has resided in the UK. A person who has been in the UK for only 1 day will get a five year grant of pre-Settled Status, just the same as a person who has resided for 4 years.
So if a temporary 5 year status is granted then 5 years and 1 day later if nothing else has been applied for then surely the temporary status has expired?
I'm really failing to understand why a temporary status expiring is making Cyclefree irate?
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
If they've been resident here for five years then they qualify. Missing a paperwork deadline doesn't invalidate their residency.
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
LOL good luck in any country in the world where you're on a temporary permit telling them that "arbitrary deadlines" don't matter. 😂
I have a friend who was deported from Australia because he missed the "arbitrary deadline" to renew his visa, he mistakenly thought his employer was sorting out his paperwork for him. The Australian government didn't take the deadline being missed kindly and he was deported despite being married to an Australian and having an Aussie daughter. He's subsequently sorted out the paperwork and moved back there, but countries tend to take these deadlines seriously.
These pre-settled visas were 5-years only, they knew that up-front.
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
If they've been resident here for five years then they qualify. Missing a paperwork deadline doesn't invalidate their residency.
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
My wife and some of her friends have had to deal with this system of settled status, you really only need to put your application in before the end of the five years to get a continuation assuming you live in the UK. It's not very difficult and is much more generous than what non-EU citizens have to put up with.
Meaghan Kall @kallmemeg · 2h I remain optimistic about Omicron being milder.
Anecdotally, in closed/vulnerable settings (hospital wards, care homes) we are seeing very high attack rates (50-80%) - a level not seen since pre-vaccine wra.
BUT! They are mostly asymptomatic and mild infections.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
And the frankly unbelievably claim about gap between actual infections and # of recorded cases. with the constantly rising level of testing, and the clear Omicron wave in London case data, the very high estimates on infections(400k by today) doesn't bear much sensible relation to the actual case trend seen so far.
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
What it does mean is that Labour won't be voting with the Government again this Parliament - so when the next rebellion occurs Boris will lose.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
Nah, no chance Starmer blocks a lockdown request from PM.
Boris would no longer be PM or Tory leader if he made a lockdown request anyway. A majority of Tory MPs would VONC him beforehand
I would caveat that by saying that if it became unavoidable, and it was the only option, then I believe his mps would back him but it will be the very last resort if it happens at all
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they? Dear oh dear.
I don't see how Boris stays on as PM if this happens, last night was about as big of a warning shot as he's going to get. Push for more restrictions and he'll be dumped, Raab becomes caretaker and there's a leadership election.
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
Applying on time?
If they apply late, and have five years of residency, why shouldn't they get settled status?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they? Dear oh dear.
Everything is following the same path, the leaks, the briefings, the dodgy models, the scare stories, the leaks, the briefings, the dodgy models have now become "fact"....
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they? Dear oh dear.
I don't see how Boris stays on as PM if this happens, last night was about as big of a warning shot as he's going to get. Push for more restrictions and he'll be dumped, Raab becomes caretaker and there's a leadership election.
Or call the bluff and dare people to try a leadership election whilst he's giving daily unchallenged prime time broadcasts about trying to save everyone from the plague. Executive has an awful lot of (unfair) advantages to exploit in this.
One of the reasons I’m going to New York is that, quite simply, this country has been less welcome to me since 2016.
There is a set of the population - I don’t know what percentage - that won’t be happy until they see forced repatriation of anyone who “speaks funny”.
Patel, aided and abetted by an out-of-control Home Office, thinks she is appealing to them. The irony is they are low information knuckle draggers who won’t even be aware of this new proposal and probably want Patel forcibly repatriated anyway.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they? Dear oh dear.
I don't see how Boris stays on as PM if this happens, last night was about as big of a warning shot as he's going to get. Push for more restrictions and he'll be dumped, Raab becomes caretaker and there's a leadership election.
Seriously where is Rishi!! Absent at last night’s vote, absent at PMQs today. This being a week after his face of shame and soul searching at PMQs last week. #resignationwatch
EU nationals and their families who have been in the UK for more than five years get settled status under the Home Office immigration scheme set up for Brexit, but those who have been in the country fewer than five years get pre-settled status and must apply again for settled status.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
Applying on time?
If they apply late, and have five years of residency, why shouldn't they get settled status?
They might be able to appeal, but why can't they apply on time?
Pre-settled status lasts five years. That is part of the agreement. Why shouldn't it expire after five years?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they? Dear oh dear.
Everything is following the same path, the leaks, the briefings, the dodgy models, the scare stories, the leaks, the briefings, the dodgy models have now become "fact"....
The only silver lining is if they lockdown and hospitals peak at c. 1/3rd last year, ruining Christmas needlessly, that might start to be enough to make people see sense.
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
Well, there's an argument that Starmer is now deliberately trying to prolong Johnson's stay in office to maximise the lasting damage to the Conservative party, but it's difficult for Johnson to make that argument without sounding ridiculous.
"They vaccinate, we vaccilate, they jabber we jab, they play party politics we get on with the job".
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
It also doesn't make sense, if anything Labour didn't play party politics with the votes yesterday. They did the "responsible" thing by supporting the government measures without asking for anything in return, I don't agree with it but describing it as party politics is ridiculous.
What it does mean is that Labour won't be voting with the Government again this Parliament - so when the next rebellion occurs Boris will lose.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
Nah, no chance Starmer blocks a lockdown request from PM.
Boris would no longer be PM or Tory leader if he made a lockdown request anyway. A majority of Tory MPs would VONC him beforehand
I would caveat that by saying that if it became unavoidable, and it was the only option, then I believe his mps would back him but it will be the very last resort if it happens at all
It would only be unavoidable if a variant emerged which was resistant to vaccines and boosters
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they? Dear oh dear.
I don't see how Boris stays on as PM if this happens, last night was about as big of a warning shot as he's going to get. Push for more restrictions and he'll be dumped, Raab becomes caretaker and there's a leadership election.
Seriously where is Rishi!! Absent at last night’s vote, absent at PMQs today. This being a week after his face of shame and soul searching at PMQs last week. #resignationwatch
Comments
I mean I know this government places no store on legal agreements but even so.
What clause is breached?
Omicron replicates 70x better than delta in nose and throat, but 10x worse in lungs.
There we have it - mechanism that explains the faster spread and the milder illness.
Sadly, both my wife and I have come down with it from doing our daily test after seeing my brother-in-law who tested positive on Sunday.
Happily we should be good for Xmas as our mandatory isolation will end on the 24th, in some ways I'm sort of glad to get it over and done with this side of 10 days before Xmas than the other side.
We're both in fairly good spirits, my wife still doesn't believe that we've got it given our lack of any symptoms today but the test lines were very, very visible on our LFTs, we've got no available PCR slots near us and since we don't have a car we can't get to a walk in test centre without getting public transport - well done Boris, that was a great idea. Anyway, have ordered home testing kits but I feel like we may both be testing negative by the time they arrive.
Just think, we've both had three vaccine doses and two infections, our immunity levels will be off the scale by next week!
I think there is a very, very reasonable chance that in January we're going to see lockdowns all over continental Europe but disaster averted in England. Not sure whether Drakeford or Sturgeon will hold their nerve or not.
Between the boosters and the fact that we had the exit wave I think that is enough to avert disaster - but I think disaster would have come without those.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1471088144002994177?s=20
As Lilico has been arguing - if this is true, then shield the vulnerable until 6th Jan and we are done.
He's proposing an extra Bank Holiday for a 2nd xmas on 6th.
Not sure the last phrase there worked for Boris. As soon as he said "they play party politics" in my head I heard "we throw parties".
Telegraph
There is an Independent Monitoring Group set up under the WA to monitor U.K. compliance with this aspect of the Agreement and it is they who have raised this concern. They say that this is contrary to the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU which specifically protects the existing rights of EU citizens in the country. Any breach of the WA is determined by the ECJ.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1471092282610921486?s=20
@thetimes
One third of Londoners are completely unvaccinated
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/21ae5800-5d1e-11ec-9cd9-b6f698a4b9a5
The proportion of the population without a single jab is three times as high in London as in the country as a whole
And if this thing is doubling every 2 days, then that makes a huge difference to the numbers?
Lockdown incoming?
Proving you had met the requirements to get settled status was a part of the agreement.
For those who didn't meet the requirements, then pre-settled status was a part of the agreement as an interim stop-gap.
But why is expecting those on the stop-gap to prove they meet the agreed requirements to get settled status a breach of the agreement?
How was pre-settled status ever meant to be full settled status? If it was, surely it would have been called settled status in the first place and not something else?
@PoliticsForAlI
BREAKING: COBRA meeting on Omicron today
Pre-settled status was granted as an interim for people who hadn't met the conditions.
Why shouldn't those who've got pre-settled status apply for full settled status at the end of the temporary status?
Are you saying that having temporary status should never expire?
WTF are they? The # last night off top of my head was ≈ 55K.
Roughly same as it has been for weeks, give or take.
Trust you will be afforded a few days off work to get through some box sets and have your Deliveroo Premium activated.
The scientific analysis is that Towers Hamlets is fucked.
Are you suggesting pre-settled status should never expire?
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
So it clearly requires people to demonstrate five years of continuous residency.
Well over 2 million people.
This is not a minor piece of bureaucratic pettifoggery.
What if there really are thousands of ghost electors - not as if that area doesn't have a history of electoral shenanigans.....
This page has a section about halfway down headed
Vaccination uptake, by vaccination date age demographics
It has a button below the chart for downloading the age/date/vaccine data so might be possible for someone clever with a bit of time on their hands..
I realise that as a Remainer I'm prejudiced, but I'm inclined to believe the EU side. It's been obvious so far that the British side didn't know what they were doing.
'No border in the Irish Sea" and so on.
More seriously, I imagine they are seeing a big uptick in positivity rates and number of tests being booked etc and extrapolating from that. I think the eggheads get to see a sample of the testing numbers before the full data sets are released (which are always couple of days back).
*Used the provided vaccination service numbers to fill in some gaps in ONS-2020 and correct the silly 100%+ thing in the 70-74 age group.
It's just a pity Labour didn't vote against yesterday on the basis that what was being offered was too little too late.
However if they do not apply before their pre-settled status expires, they automatically lose their rights and could be liable to removal from the country, something the IMA has said it considers unlawful.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/14/home-office-sued-by-watchdog-set-up-to-protect-post-brexit-rights-of-eu-citizens
What the IMA proposes happens to those who do not apply is not clear, nor why EU citizens should be treated differently from the citizens of the rest of the planet....
But the consequences of not reapplying for the existing status and whether what is proposed is a breach of the agreement.
From the agreement:
Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host State for a period exceeding 5 consecutive years.
Pre-settled status is temporary, not permanent residency:
How long is Pre-Settled status granted for?
Pre-Settled Status is granted for a 5-year period, irrespective of how long a person has resided in the UK. A person who has been in the UK for only 1 day will get a five year grant of pre-Settled Status, just the same as a person who has resided for 4 years.
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/communities/european-londoners-hub/pre-settled-status
I was working on a chart of completely un-protected. But issues with the Scottish population data....
What's the alternative? Are you suggesting that pre-settled status should never, ever expire? If so, then isn't that settled status?
Surely the whole point of pre-settled status is that it was a temporary interim until settled status was applied for and if it isn't applied for then surely pre-settled status should ultimately expire?
No one had him in the deadpool, did they?
There has to be a way for people to gain settled status without an arbitrary deadline preventing that.
I'm really failing to understand why a temporary status expiring is making Cyclefree irate?
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
They're gonna introduce extra restrictions, aren't they?
Dear oh dear.
Macron (LREM-RE): 25%
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 17%
Le Pen (RN-ID): 16%
Zemmour (REC-*): 12%
Jadot (EELV-G/EFA): 8%
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 8%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1471098728056557575?s=20
I have a friend who was deported from Australia because he missed the "arbitrary deadline" to renew his visa, he mistakenly thought his employer was sorting out his paperwork for him. The Australian government didn't take the deadline being missed kindly and he was deported despite being married to an Australian and having an Aussie daughter. He's subsequently sorted out the paperwork and moved back there, but countries tend to take these deadlines seriously.
These pre-settled visas were 5-years only, they knew that up-front.
@kallmemeg
·
2h
I remain optimistic about Omicron being milder.
Anecdotally, in closed/vulnerable settings (hospital wards, care homes) we are seeing very high attack rates (50-80%) - a level not seen since pre-vaccine wra.
BUT! They are mostly asymptomatic and mild infections.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1471072334454968323?s=20
Overall 11 per cent of the UK has yet to receive a single dose of vaccine, but this rises to 32 per cent in London.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1471072957174890496?s=20
There is a set of the population - I don’t know what percentage - that won’t be happy until they see forced repatriation of anyone who “speaks funny”.
Patel, aided and abetted by an out-of-control Home Office, thinks she is appealing to them. The irony is they are low information knuckle draggers who won’t even be aware of this new proposal and probably want Patel forcibly repatriated anyway.
This is all part of the Brexit dividend.
Pre-settled status lasts five years. That is part of the agreement. Why shouldn't it expire after five years?