The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
By my calculations, if we currently have 10,000 Omicron cases a day, a continuation of the 2 day doubling time as assumed will mean we'll have over 300 million cases a day in a month.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
By my calculations, if we currently have 10,000 Omicron cases a day, a continuation of the 2 day doubling time as assumed will mean we'll have over 300 million cases a day in a month.
Very worrying indeed.
Brilliant, I can't think why nobody's made this amazing joke before
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
Boris has eaten him
I just wonder if he’s lying low until the bi election and will then make a move.
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.
This is all part of the Brexit dividend.
Go to Trump voting Mississippi or Alabama or West Virginia or even rural New York state and you would find it a totally different story. London however you will find culturally similar to New York city.
The division is less UK v New York but rural and small town v urban with the suburbs and commuter belt in between. That is now largely true across the western world
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?
Based on that article it appears to be 2 conflicting clauses in the agreement (as I suspected it would be)
So @Cyclefree is being unreasonable in presenting it as the UK government tearing up an agreement. But it is reasonable to ask for a court to adjudicate
Interesting that the zoe covid app which has always been the canary in the coal mine (and always much higher cases than official figures) has been showing increase in cases, but not the millions per day that the government are talking about.
Now maybe their model has broken... maybe not enough people are reporting any symptoms but actually have omicron. But they also do their own random sample testing etc.
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
Boris has eaten him
I just wonder if he’s lying low until the bi election and will then make a move.
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 probably will - but not keeping your immigration status up to date should not be "penalty free" as some appear to be suggesting.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
Yes.
Right. So if it does blow up like that - and I don't see a good reason to doubt it - we must hope that the early indications of it being a relatively mild non-hospitalizing disease cf the delta variant are confirmed. And ditto for your dose btw. Mild, I very much hope.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
By my calculations, if we currently have 10,000 Omicron cases a day, a continuation of the 2 day doubling time as assumed will mean we'll have over 300 million cases a day in a month.
Very worrying indeed.
Brilliant, I can't think why nobody's made this amazing joke before
The joke is still being made because people like you still don’t understand the gompertz effect on case growth.
Interesting that the zoe covid app which has always been the canary in the coal mine (and always much higher cases than official figures) has been showing increase in cases, but not the millions per day that the government are talking about.
Now maybe their model has broken... maybe not enough people are reporting any symptoms but actually have omicron. But they also do their own random sample testing etc.
Specter popped up again today saying he thinks most people in London who think they just have a cold will have Omicron.
Which is quite a good example of how silly this situation has gone. Massive sunk cost fallacy whilst we justify keeping going trying to stamp out a new cold variant.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
By my calculations, if we currently have 10,000 Omicron cases a day, a continuation of the 2 day doubling time as assumed will mean we'll have over 300 million cases a day in a month.
Very worrying indeed.
Brilliant, I can't think why nobody's made this amazing joke before
And it will continue to be made for as long as the government continues to spout utter rubbish based on extrapolations of that assumption.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
By my calculations, if we currently have 10,000 Omicron cases a day, a continuation of the 2 day doubling time as assumed will mean we'll have over 300 million cases a day in a month.
Very worrying indeed.
Brilliant, I can't think why nobody's made this amazing joke before
The joke is still being made because people like you still don’t understand the gompertz effect on case growth.
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.
If he's been convinced/hoodwinked into believing it is necessary then he will do it, regardless, and you'd expect he'd be able to keep the support of less than a hundred of his own MPs, if he has Labour and SNP support (assuming greater restrictions are tied to financial support which would then have Barnett consequentials the SNP could vote for).
The difficulty here is particularly the short incubation period of Omicron. For earlier waves it was possible to watch hospitals fill up and then impose restrictions in time to stop the worst impacts.
With Omicron if you want to make a difference you have to act in advance, before it's obvious that you need to.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
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.
I suspect the court would say the intention of the agreement was to have the proof requirement as that was explicitly stated while the IMA is relying on that clause being invalidated by a general principle.
But that’s the sort of question that should go before a judge
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.
A hundred Tories were willing to say this is going too far despite the three line whip. That's how many were prepared to put their heads above the parapets despite the payroll vote being forced to vote Aye.
In a confidence vote its a secret ballot, isn't it? If there's a lockdown again then these 100 votes could easily be combined with enough payroll votes who voted Aye only due to the whip to force Boris out. I expect Sunak and Truss and their supporters would both be voting to No Confidence in a secret ballot but can't vote Nay in a whipped vote.
I don't see how Boris can survive attempting another lockdown now. The numbers just aren't there. If he tries, he'll be out like May should have been three years ago.
Interesting that the zoe covid app which has always been the canary in the coal mine (and always much higher cases than official figures) has been showing increase in cases, but not the millions per day that the government are talking about.
Now maybe their model has broken... maybe not enough people are reporting any symptoms but actually have omicron. But they also do their own random sample testing etc.
The ZOE app has been excellent in its accuracy throughout Covid and always 2 weeks ahead of what will happen.
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?
Based on that article it appears to be 2 conflicting clauses in the agreement (as I suspected it would be)
So @Cyclefree is being unreasonable in presenting it as the UK government tearing up an agreement. But it is reasonable to ask for a court to adjudicate
Again if we agreed to an Independent Monitoring Authority we should go with their interpretation rather than end up in court.
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
Boris has eaten him
I just wonder if he’s lying low until the bi election and will then make a move.
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.
That’s unreasonable to both sides @OldKingCole. Conflicting clauses are not unusual in complex agreements
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
Yes.
Right. So if it does blow up like that - and I don't see a good reason to doubt it - we must hope that the early indications of it being a relatively mild non-hospitalizing disease cf the delta variant are confirmed. And ditto for your dose btw. Mild, I very much hope.
There is good reason to doubt it, simply every exponent has a ceiling as we saw with Delta. In my case, it's almost non-existent in terms of symptoms, yesterday was pretty awful but that is probably because I got my third jab on Monday. My wife is certain that when we do our PCRs they will be negative, I don't think so.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
Just how many Johnsons are there now? I knew about Stanley, Boris, Jo and Rachel and obviously Boris has plenty of sprog, but I wasn't aware there was a Jesus Johnson about. How festive is 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....
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
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.
If he's been convinced/hoodwinked into believing it is necessary then he will do it, regardless, and you'd expect he'd be able to keep the support of less than a hundred of his own MPs, if he has Labour and SNP support (assuming greater restrictions are tied to financial support which would then have Barnett consequentials the SNP could vote for).
The difficulty here is particularly the short incubation period of Omicron. For earlier waves it was possible to watch hospitals fill up and then impose restrictions in time to stop the worst impacts.
With Omicron if you want to make a difference you have to act in advance, before it's obvious that you need to.
Of course until anyone else's hospitals start filling to breaking point, you're also taking a punt that you are the joint worst hit country in the world.
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.
If he's been convinced/hoodwinked into believing it is necessary then he will do it, regardless, and you'd expect he'd be able to keep the support of less than a hundred of his own MPs, if he has Labour and SNP support (assuming greater restrictions are tied to financial support which would then have Barnett consequentials the SNP could vote for).
The difficulty here is particularly the short incubation period of Omicron. For earlier waves it was possible to watch hospitals fill up and then impose restrictions in time to stop the worst impacts.
With Omicron if you want to make a difference you have to act in advance, before it's obvious that you need to.
He'd be out of office within a few days, especially if he's doing it with Lab/SNP support. I mean that would be the end of Boris.
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?
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
I think that's a deeper question about immigration law in general. Why is permanent residency not offered immediately? In any case, the permits they have are temporary, hence the deadline.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
Because they haven't met the agreed permanent requirements, so they were given a temporary permit instead, as agreed.
Temporary permit being temporary as agreed hardly seems earth shattering to me.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
I think that's a deeper question about immigration law in general. Why is permanent residency not offered immediately? In any case, the permits they have are temporary, hence the deadline.
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?
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Just how many Johnsons are there now? I knew about Stanley, Boris, Jo and Rachel and obviously Boris has plenty of sprog, but I wasn't aware there was a Jesus Johnson about. How festive is 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....
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
I think that's a deeper question about immigration law in general. Why is permanent residency not offered immediately? In any case, the permits they have are temporary, hence the deadline.
So it's completely arbitrary? Got it.
No, it's a consequence of immigration policy. You could argue the whole system is arbitrary, but I think most people would agree there is a need for multiple migration/immigration channels.
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.
If he's been convinced/hoodwinked into believing it is necessary then he will do it, regardless, and you'd expect he'd be able to keep the support of less than a hundred of his own MPs, if he has Labour and SNP support (assuming greater restrictions are tied to financial support which would then have Barnett consequentials the SNP could vote for).
The difficulty here is particularly the short incubation period of Omicron. For earlier waves it was possible to watch hospitals fill up and then impose restrictions in time to stop the worst impacts.
With Omicron if you want to make a difference you have to act in advance, before it's obvious that you need to.
Hm, getting the SNP (and PC ...) on side, by opening the matter at least partlu open to UK-wide issues (e.g. on funding closedown of hospitality), would also put the Scottish and Welsh Tory MPs on the spot - have to get off the various fences, in several ways unwelcome to them, as @StuartDickson was noting earlier on for the SCUP.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
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?
Based on that article it appears to be 2 conflicting clauses in the agreement (as I suspected it would be)
So @Cyclefree is being unreasonable in presenting it as the UK government tearing up an agreement. But it is reasonable to ask for a court to adjudicate
Again if we agreed to an Independent Monitoring Authority we should go with their interpretation rather than end up in court.
No.
The IMA was agreed as part of it but not as the judge. The court is the judge.
If we disagree with the IMA then it goes to the court, that is what the agreement says.
Why do you think a temporary permit shouldn't be temporary, when the agreement literally says it is temporary?
"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
I haven't seen PMQs and am having a McD's vile wrap in the car over lunchtime and R4 WATO aren't dwelling on it.
They mentioned the Starmer playing party politics and Labour jabbering, Conservatives jab narratives, so was he awesome and Starmer poor?
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
Because otherwise 350 million people would have had to have spent less than a month in the UK for permanent lifetime residency?
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
I think that's a deeper question about immigration law in general. Why is permanent residency not offered immediately? In any case, the permits they have are temporary, hence the deadline.
So it's completely arbitrary? Got it.
Its not arbitrary, its literally in the agreement.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
I think that's a deeper question about immigration law in general. Why is permanent residency not offered immediately? In any case, the permits they have are temporary, hence the deadline.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
But they didn't have a permanent right, that's the point. Their right to stay was temporary based on their pre-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.
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?
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.
A hundred Tories were willing to say this is going too far despite the three line whip. That's how many were prepared to put their heads above the parapets despite the payroll vote being forced to vote Aye.
In a confidence vote its a secret ballot, isn't it? If there's a lockdown again then these 100 votes could easily be combined with enough payroll votes who voted Aye only due to the whip to force Boris out. I expect Sunak and Truss and their supporters would both be voting to No Confidence in a secret ballot but can't vote Nay in a whipped vote.
I don't see how Boris can survive attempting another lockdown now. The numbers just aren't there. If he tries, he'll be out like May should have been three years ago.
Tory MPs would be mad to get rid of Boris over lockdown. It would crash and burn the Govt and the party. Won't happen. And who would be the alternative who lead the country into a world of freedom and light?
Interesting post here from a sane Tory commentator who puts the case for Boris.
"Here is a man who can reach and sway audiences in a way that a purely technocratic Prime Minister might struggle to do. It may be that in some future pandemic, when the occupant of Number 10 is a dull figure who fails to sustain interest over a long period, we shall wish we still had, as was the case in the good old days, a leader with Johnson’s superlative abilities as a communicator."
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
Because otherwise 350 million people would have had to have spent less than a month in the UK for permanent lifetime residency?
My understanding is that this only relates to people who were ordinarily resident in the UK pre-Brexit, so not 350m people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
But they didn't have a permanent right, that's the point. Their right to stay was temporary based on their pre-settled status.
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.
This is all part of the Brexit dividend.
Go to Trump voting Mississippi or Alabama or West Virginia or even rural New York state and you would find it a totally different story. London however you will find culturally similar to New York city.
The division is less UK v New York but rural and small town v urban with the suburbs and commuter belt in between. That is now largely true across the western world
"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
I haven't seen PMQs and am having a McD's vile wrap in the car over lunchtime and R4 WATO aren't dwelling on it.
They mentioned the Starmer playing party politics and Labour jabbering, Conservatives jab narratives, so was he awesome and Starmer poor?
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.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
But they didn't have a permanent right, that's the point. Their right to stay was temporary based on their pre-settled status.
Hair splitting for arbitrary reasons.
Even as posters declare they don’t trust the government on lockdowns, in the same breath they rush to defend Patel and the Home Office against the independent monitoring authority.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
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.
That’s unreasonable to both sides @OldKingCole. Conflicting clauses are not unusual in complex agreements
Indeed. Just look at the AZ-EU vaccine supply agreement for another contentious example.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
But they didn't have a permanent right, that's the point. Their right to stay was temporary based on their pre-settled status.
Hair splitting for arbitrary reasons.
The government and the EU spent years negotiating the agreement, do you not think it should be followed?
The agreement said that pre-settled status would be granted for a five year period. Maybe in your eyes that's "arbitrary" and maybe it could have been four years or six. But the agreement says five.
It seems really strange to see the government being attacked for sticking with what the agreement says!
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
Well if they don't live here anyway, I don't think its a problem either. Fair enough.
The Tory MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked a fixer to find him work with a Saudi employer, describing himself as the most “pro-Saudi” member of parliament and boasting that the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman, “has stated that Saudi has no better friend in UK than me”.
In one message, Kawczynski said: “I am looking for a position with a company as non exec director or adviser/consultant. Obviously my passion for Anglo Arab relations [is] something which could help a company with relations in the UK or Middle East. Not sure what remuneration I am looking for but you are such a good negotiator!!! Best wishes Daniel.”
In another, the Tory MP asked the fixer for paid work on a conference related to Saudi Arabia’s regional foe, Qatar: “Promise you will push for good remuneration too for me … I need it to pay school fees!”
Kawczynski arranged to host one potential Saudi employer in parliament, offering him a tour of the House of Commons and a dinner in the MPs’ private dining room. He also arranged to meet the fixer in his parliamentary office to discuss a project.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
But they didn't have a permanent right, that's the point. Their right to stay was temporary based on their pre-settled status.
Hair splitting for arbitrary reasons.
Not really. You can argue for a system where permanent residency can be acquired immediately, but it isn't the system in place at the moment.
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?
Based on that article it appears to be 2 conflicting clauses in the agreement (as I suspected it would be)
So @Cyclefree is being unreasonable in presenting it as the UK government tearing up an agreement. But it is reasonable to ask for a court to adjudicate
Again if we agreed to an Independent Monitoring Authority we should go with their interpretation rather than end up in court.
No.
The IMA was agreed as part of it but not as the judge. The court is the judge.
If we disagree with the IMA then it goes to the court, that is what the agreement says.
Why do you think a temporary permit shouldn't be temporary, when the agreement literally says it is temporary?
No-one is saying a temporary permit shouldnt be temporary. As Cyclefree has explained the argument is over how that process works when the deadline is not met.
Taking everything to court is a sign of weakness and ineffectiveness not strength.
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.
A hundred Tories were willing to say this is going too far despite the three line whip. That's how many were prepared to put their heads above the parapets despite the payroll vote being forced to vote Aye.
In a confidence vote its a secret ballot, isn't it? If there's a lockdown again then these 100 votes could easily be combined with enough payroll votes who voted Aye only due to the whip to force Boris out. I expect Sunak and Truss and their supporters would both be voting to No Confidence in a secret ballot but can't vote Nay in a whipped vote.
I don't see how Boris can survive attempting another lockdown now. The numbers just aren't there. If he tries, he'll be out like May should have been three years ago.
Tory MPs would be mad to get rid of Boris over lockdown. It would crash and burn the Govt and the party. Won't happen. And who would be the alternative who lead the country into a world of freedom and light?
Interesting post here from a sane Tory commentator who puts the case for Boris.
"Here is a man who can reach and sway audiences in a way that a purely technocratic Prime Minister might struggle to do. It may be that in some future pandemic, when the occupant of Number 10 is a dull figure who fails to sustain interest over a long period, we shall wish we still had, as was the case in the good old days, a leader with Johnson’s superlative abilities as a communicator."
What a joke. This is the expert communicator who even now blathers on about washing hands to stop the spread of covid.
Christopher HopeMemo @christopherhope · 11m Concern in the detail of the 100-strong rebellion over vaccine passports last night. Every 1922 committee officer voted against the PM. Moments later the 1922 treasurer went on TV to warn of a possible leadership challenge.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
But they didn't have a permanent right, that's the point. Their right to stay was temporary based on their pre-settled status.
Hair splitting for arbitrary reasons.
The government and the EU spent years negotiating the agreement, do you not think it should be followed?
The agreement said that pre-settled status would be granted for a five year period. Maybe in your eyes that's "arbitrary" and maybe it could have been four years or six. But the agreement says five.
It seems really strange to see the government being attacked for sticking with what the agreement says!
The Government don't follow rules they created and you've supported that before, so it's weird this is something that concerns you
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
Not to mention the near certainty of the Home Office fncking up the paperwork for a significant percentage of the 2.4m subject to this.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
I have to say, anybody who goes to live / work in another country, it really is your responsibility to find out what the paperwork required and do it.
Mrs U works a lot in the US, she would never dream of not ensuring every i isn't dotted or t crossed, triple checked etc months ahead of any deadline.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
Well if they don't live here anyway, I don't think its a problem either. Fair enough.
I think that's the issue, there's no scenario of someone with pre-settled status living here and getting kicked out of the country, they qualify for residency and can easily apply for that with a very simple process. People are saying that this is all really awful but ultimately this is aligning EU immigration with non-EU immigration and getting rid of that special pre-settled status or at least removing it from a very large proportion who can't prove that they live here.
In one message, Kawczynski said: “I am looking for a position with a company as non exec director or adviser/consultant. Obviously my passion for Anglo Arab relations [is] something which could help a company with relations in the UK or Middle East. Not sure what remuneration I am looking for but you are such a good negotiator!!! Best wishes Daniel.”...
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
I have to say, anybody who goes to live / work in another country, it really is your responsibility to find out what the paperwork required and do it.
Mrs U works a lot in the US, she would never dream of not ensuring every i isn't dotted or t crossed, triple checkdd etc months ahead of any deadline.
These people made their homes here when they were not “emigrating”, at least in the bureaucratic sense.
First they came for the Windrushers…but I was not an Afro-Caribbean born in the 1940s/50s…
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?
Based on that article it appears to be 2 conflicting clauses in the agreement (as I suspected it would be)
So @Cyclefree is being unreasonable in presenting it as the UK government tearing up an agreement. But it is reasonable to ask for a court to adjudicate
Again if we agreed to an Independent Monitoring Authority we should go with their interpretation rather than end up in court.
Why? If that was the intention then it would have been stated in the agreement (binding arbitration vs prior arbitration in corporate contracts)
It seems pretty clear the government won't recall parliament over the holidays, so it will be rule by decree again. When significant numbers of MPs are furious about what has been done so far, you can imagine how they will feel when more gets imposed and they don't get a say.
Perhaps Sunak is busy creating WhatsApp groups to funnel the anger from these various MPs towards a putsch...
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 government and the EU spent years negotiating the agreement, do you not think it should be followed?
I love this quote so much.
Could we add a button to re-quote this automatically everytime PT drifts onto NI and Lord Frosts genius.
Why? I don't advocate breaking the NI Protocol? I advocate invoking one of its Articles, which is an entirely legitimate thing to do. If they didn't want that Article to be able to be invoked, it shouldn't have been included in the Treaty, but since it was its legitimate to be able to use it.
Yes countries reserve the right to break Treaties but that should only be done if really, really necessary. I don't see any reason why its necessary here or with NI, do you?
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?
A lot of Brit ex-pats in Spain are having big trouble with the Spanish post-brexit rules for staying. Portugal took an approach of basically fill a form in before this date and show some proof you live here and you are all good forever, Spain are making all sorts of requirements especially in terms of quite significant income and if you haven't been full time there i.e. doing seasonal work even more hassle.
England only - percentages of population completely un-jabbed
So negative numbers here indicate "our population estimate for the age group is too low", right? Cambridge seems to have managed an impressive -53% for the 30-39 range, which suggests a really wildly wrong set of population figures there...
In one message, Kawczynski said: “I am looking for a position with a company as non exec director or adviser/consultant. Obviously my passion for Anglo Arab relations [is] something which could help a company with relations in the UK or Middle East. Not sure what remuneration I am looking for but you are such a good negotiator!!! Best wishes Daniel.”...
These Tory backwaters seem to be riddled with corruption.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
Because otherwise 350 million people would have had to have spent less than a month in the UK for permanent lifetime residency?
My understanding is that this only relates to people who were ordinarily resident in the UK pre-Brexit, so not 350m people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
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?
That one party claims something is unlawful doesn't make it so.
Are you suggesting pre-settled status should never expire?
I suggest that if we agreed to an Independent Monitoring Authority, we should follow their guidance on interpretation.
Why on earth would you do that?
It is called being reasonable and restoring trust and confidence.
I’ve a bridge to sell if you are buying?
If it was a bridge I wanted to buy I am sure we could manage the transaction without ending up in court. Why does this government feel the need to take everything to court?
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?
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
I have to say, anybody who goes to live / work in another country, it really is your responsibility to find out what the paperwork required and do it.
Mrs U works a lot in the US, she would never dream of not ensuring every i isn't dotted or t crossed, triple checkdd etc months ahead of any deadline.
These people made their homes here when they were not “emigrating”, at least in the bureaucratic sense.
First they came for the Windrushers…but I was not an Afro-Caribbean born in the 1940s/50s…
The people living here all have residency though. You've just gone down the "I don't like this so I'm going to be upset" route. Pre-settled status was a really generous one off, being able to renew it is even more generous for people who don't live here. There's no scenario of people being deported over this, what it does is remove pre-settled status from people who have chosen not to take it up in the last five years. I think that's fair.
@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.
Correct, Douglas Ross is the only Tory MP so far to announce not seeking re-election. His Moray seat is being abolished
"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
I haven't seen PMQs and am having a McD's vile wrap in the car over lunchtime and R4 WATO aren't dwelling on it.
They mentioned the Starmer playing party politics and Labour jabbering, Conservatives jab narratives, so was he awesome and Starmer poor?
Living the dream....
As one of the self employed I am considering it my works Christmas party.
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Settled and pre-settled status aren't indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Both can easily be turned into the latter, my wife did it three years ago.
Aye, I understand that, but it doesn't seem right to me that someone loses their existing right to stay in this country, which these EU citizens previously had, just because they've forgotten to fill a form in. I don't see the benefit or the purpose of such a barrier. It just seems punitive.
No one forgets to fill the form in if they live here, you get multiple reminders. My wife had loads despite already having indefinite leave to remain. The issue here is that loads of EU citizens got pre-settled status on the basis of coming to the UK for one day now that 5 year period is coming to an end so those who haven't made a life in the UK are having to reapply but don't have a legitimate claim to residency. That's what this is about, anyone who lives here or has lived here for more than five years won't even register this as a problem, it's the pre-settled people that will lose that status and I'm not sure it's a huge deal either. They don't live here anyway.
I have to say, anybody who goes to live / work in another country, it really is your responsibility to find out what the paperwork required and do it.
Mrs U works a lot in the US, she would never dream of not ensuring every i isn't dotted or t crossed, triple checkdd etc months ahead of any deadline.
These people made their homes here when they were not “emigrating”, at least in the bureaucratic sense.
First they came for the Windrushers…but I was not an Afro-Caribbean born in the 1940s/50s…
The people living here all have residency though. You've just gone down the "I don't like this so I'm going to be upset" route. Pre-settled status was a really generous one off, being able to renew it is even more generous for people who don't live here. There's no scenario of people being deported over this, what it does is remove pre-settled status from people who have chosen not to take it up in the last five years. I think that's fair.
If the UK had followed the treaty to the letter there wouldn't even have been pre-settled status. Anyone without five years of residency (excluding family members etc) would have had no residency rights.
The 'staggering number' of projected cases comes from the estimated less than 2 day doubling time, doesn't it?
By my calculations, if we currently have 10,000 Omicron cases a day, a continuation of the 2 day doubling time as assumed will mean we'll have over 300 million cases a day in a month.
Very worrying indeed.
Which of course is fantasy, being 6 times the population. But what might not be fantasy is it gets a few doubles in before the growth shallows out and peaks. That could be a big number. Then the small % of these who require hospital x that big number could be a number which overwhelms the health service. This is the heart of the matter - just like it was for the previous waves. So a similar risk calc is required but factoring in a changed politics, a changed public, and changed govt finances.
Given the HSA model of cases, by the time we get to the lockdown on the 5th, won't we all have had Omicron at least once, even all SeanT aliases.....
What I don't get is that they appear to be trying to scare people with the number of cases.
And yet there more cases there actually are now, the better the situation looks.
Some idiot came up with the most stupid approximation, but they can't back out now.... picking a figure from a month ago, projecting forward to last week, then taking very uncertain values for % that were omicron and double time, then they projected forward with no accounting for vaccinations, prior infection or behavioural change....a tiny change in any if those get you a massively different figure...but now they set off they are quite literally doubling down.
Its embarrassing even for secondary school maths student...
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?
Because they applied late? The deadline is there for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be a temporary residence permit.
What is the reason?
Because the residence permit is temporary.
But why?
Because otherwise 350 million people would have had to have spent less than a month in the UK for permanent lifetime residency?
My understanding is that this only relates to people who were ordinarily resident in the UK pre-Brexit, so not 350m people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ordinarily resident for 1 day potentially
Imagine if every British holidaymaker in Spain in 2020 had signed up for Spanish "pre-settled status" whilst on the beach. Cyclefree seems to be suggesting they should all be able to retire to Spain in thirty years time, no questions asked, on the basis of that one application. Spain, presumably, does not see it that way. And nor would any of the 26 other countries. But when the UK government does it, it's "nasty" apparently.
Comments
Very worrying indeed.
The division is less UK v New York but rural and small town v urban with the suburbs and commuter belt in between. That is now largely true across the western world
So @Cyclefree is being unreasonable in presenting it as the UK government tearing up an agreement. But it is reasonable to ask for a court to adjudicate
Now maybe their model has broken... maybe not enough people are reporting any symptoms but actually have omicron. But they also do their own random sample testing etc.
Which is quite a good example of how silly this situation has gone. Massive sunk cost fallacy whilst we justify keeping going trying to stamp out a new cold variant.
The difficulty here is particularly the short incubation period of Omicron. For earlier waves it was possible to watch hospitals fill up and then impose restrictions in time to stop the worst impacts.
With Omicron if you want to make a difference you have to act in advance, before it's obvious that you need to.
But that’s the sort of question that should go before a judge
In a confidence vote its a secret ballot, isn't it? If there's a lockdown again then these 100 votes could easily be combined with enough payroll votes who voted Aye only due to the whip to force Boris out. I expect Sunak and Truss and their supporters would both be voting to No Confidence in a secret ballot but can't vote Nay in a whipped vote.
I don't see how Boris can survive attempting another lockdown now. The numbers just aren't there. If he tries, he'll be out like May should have been three years ago.
Temporary permit being temporary as agreed hardly seems earth shattering to me.
Surely not just coincidence!
The IMA was agreed as part of it but not as the judge. The court is the judge.
If we disagree with the IMA then it goes to the court, that is what the agreement says.
Why do you think a temporary permit shouldn't be temporary, when the agreement literally says it is temporary?
They mentioned the Starmer playing party politics and Labour jabbering, Conservatives jab narratives, so was he awesome and Starmer poor?
Does the WA explicitly detail the path to permanent settlement (ie pre-settled status) or just talk about the criteria for achieving permanent rights
What a lackey. And I believe he doesn’t even charge!
Interesting post here from a sane Tory commentator who puts the case for Boris.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/12/christmas-parties-are-a-derisory-pretext-for-trying-to-overthrow-the-prime-minister.html
"Here is a man who can reach and sway audiences in a way that a purely technocratic Prime Minister might struggle to do. It may be that in some future pandemic, when the occupant of Number 10 is a dull figure who fails to sustain interest over a long period, we shall wish we still had, as was the case in the good old days, a leader with Johnson’s superlative abilities as a communicator."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12020W/TXT&from=EN
Pre-settled status was for those that don't meet the criteria in paragraph 1, it was above and beyond what was required by the treaty.
The agreement said that pre-settled status would be granted for a five year period. Maybe in your eyes that's "arbitrary" and maybe it could have been four years or six. But the agreement says five.
It seems really strange to see the government being attacked for sticking with what the agreement says!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/15/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-fixer-job-with-saudi-contacts-school-fees
The Tory MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked a fixer to find him work with a Saudi employer, describing himself as the most “pro-Saudi” member of parliament and boasting that the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman, “has stated that Saudi has no better friend in UK than me”.
In one message, Kawczynski said: “I am looking for a position with a company as non exec director or adviser/consultant. Obviously my passion for Anglo Arab relations [is] something which could help a company with relations in the UK or Middle East. Not sure what remuneration I am looking for but you are such a good negotiator!!! Best wishes Daniel.”
In another, the Tory MP asked the fixer for paid work on a conference related to Saudi Arabia’s regional foe, Qatar: “Promise you will push for good remuneration too for me … I need it to pay school fees!”
Kawczynski arranged to host one potential Saudi employer in parliament, offering him a tour of the House of Commons and a dinner in the MPs’ private dining room. He also arranged to meet the fixer in his parliamentary office to discuss a project.
Taking everything to court is a sign of weakness and ineffectiveness not strength.
@christopherhope
·
11m
Concern in the detail of the 100-strong rebellion over vaccine passports last night.
Every 1922 committee officer voted against the PM. Moments later the 1922 treasurer went on TV to warn of a possible leadership challenge.
Mrs U works a lot in the US, she would never dream of not ensuring every i isn't dotted or t crossed, triple checked etc months ahead of any deadline.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/15/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-fixer-job-with-saudi-contacts-school-fees
The Tory MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked a fixer to find him work with a Saudi employer, describing himself as the most “pro-Saudi” member of parliament and boasting that the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman, “has stated that Saudi has no better friend in UK than me”.
In one message, Kawczynski said: “I am looking for a position with a company as non exec director or adviser/consultant. Obviously my passion for Anglo Arab relations [is] something which could help a company with relations in the UK or Middle East. Not sure what remuneration I am looking for but you are such a good negotiator!!! Best wishes Daniel.”...
First they came for the Windrushers…but I was not an Afro-Caribbean born in the 1940s/50s…
Perhaps Sunak is busy creating WhatsApp groups to funnel the anger from these various MPs towards a putsch...
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22039538/
Yes countries reserve the right to break Treaties but that should only be done if really, really necessary. I don't see any reason why its necessary here or with NI, do you?
And yet there more cases there actually are now, the better the situation looks.
But why bother with nuance when you can go for a cheap insult?
I dare say The Last Boy Scout will be on to his 14th bout too.
Its embarrassing even for secondary school maths student...