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.
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.
Hang on. We were told that the Home Office couldn't possibly process 3 million applications in time - in the end they did nearly double that - more than four times the rest of the EU combined. Yes they can frequently make foul ups - but on this they largely did what was asked of them.
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.
Yeah, I know it is all a projection, but it could be true if 90% of the Omicron cases don't even get noticed.
You would think that the ONS would pick that up though.
It is odd that we have such excellent statistical monitoring through the ONS and via the Dashboard and world-beating (ha!) sequencing, and yet the modellers come out with such apparent nonsense all the time without much in the way of justification.
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?
Charles of course v keen to insist the independent monitoring authority is wrong.
What a lackey. And I believe he doesn’t even charge!
As I said upthread it looks like a grey area with two potentially conflicting clauses.
But why bother with nuance when you can go for a cheap insult?
I’m just pointing out your habitual inclination to rush to the establishment’s defence.
Cadet branch mentality.
It's a useful antidote on a messageboard where we spend our time on pub-style "setting the world to rights" conversation. Sometimes the world is the way it is for a reason, and a reminder doesn't hurt.
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 was for those that don't meet the criteria in paragraph 1, it was above and beyond what was required by the treaty.
IANAL
But based on a quick read I think the UK may struggle (although I don’t think it an outrage per @Cyclefree as UK approach is a reasonable administrative proposal even if it doesn’t ultimately work)
Basically EU citizens have existing rights to reside preserved. If they hit 5 years continuous residency they can apply for permanent status. Continuous residency determined in accordance with another directive referenced
So:
- Reasonable to request pre-settled status application as a way to have a record of people in the UK at the critical point in time - Reasonable to have a 5 year continuous residency requirement Uk achieve permanent status
Questions:
- The fundamental questions are (a) does pre-settled status expire and what are the implications; and (b) what happens if continuous residency is lost
(a) instinctively feels like a breach of preservation of existing rights - I would suggest an automatic roll-over for 12 months, together with a fee. Not unreasonable to expect EU citizens to regularise their position. But an automatic loss of rights seems like a breach
(b) don’t know the underlying directive, but seems a stretch that pre-settled status is preserved if someone established residence elsewhere. It wasn’t intended as a permanent option to move to the UK
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!
Not in the Article that @RobD linked to. Is it somewhere else in the WA?
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.
I suspect concern about absenteeism through sickness is also a major factor given an NHS that was in (slow) recovery mode before Omicron.
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?
Charles of course v keen to insist the independent monitoring authority is wrong.
What a lackey. And I believe he doesn’t even charge!
As I said upthread it looks like a grey area with two potentially conflicting clauses.
But why bother with nuance when you can go for a cheap insult?
I’m just pointing out your habitual inclination to rush to the establishment’s defence.
Cadet branch mentality.
It's a useful antidote on a messageboard where we spend our time on pub-style "setting the world to rights" conversation. Sometimes the world is the way it is for a reason, and a reminder doesn't hurt.
The world is always the way it is for a reason. Sometimes, the reasons stink.
@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
Well yes, but there is an obvious successor to his seat which takes in the two largest Moray communities, Elgin and Forres plus, from a Tory POV, some reasonable territory further west, including Nairn and Grantown.
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
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?
Charles of course v keen to insist the independent monitoring authority is wrong.
What a lackey. And I believe he doesn’t even charge!
As I said upthread it looks like a grey area with two potentially conflicting clauses.
But why bother with nuance when you can go for a cheap insult?
I’m just pointing out your habitual inclination to rush to the establishment’s defence.
Cadet branch mentality.
It's a useful antidote on a messageboard where we spend our time on pub-style "setting the world to rights" conversation. Sometimes the world is the way it is for a reason, and a reminder doesn't hurt.
The world is always the way it is for a reason. Sometimes, the reasons stink.
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...
Indeed.
I am starting to wonder if the estimates of 300 million cases of Whine-The-Pooh by lunchtime tomorrow are merely predictions of the possible.
"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.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
Boris is fighting for his political life and the only sensible target is Labour, no matter what the circumstances. Anything that plays upon Conservative divisions at this stage is a fatal mistake, so he's playing it right. It would have been very interesting if someone had simply asked "where is the chancellor of the exchequer?", but risky because there may be a bland sensible reason for his absence.
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?
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
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?
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
The old favourite gag narrative of Starmer jabbers, Boris jabs is always a big winner.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
The government likely has the information it needs for most people as to whether they have been resident, but instead of working it out they will chuck people out of the country.
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?
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.
Yeah, I know it is all a projection, but it could be true if 90% of the Omicron cases don't even get noticed.
You would think that the ONS would pick that up though.
It is odd that we have such excellent statistical monitoring through the ONS and via the Dashboard and world-beating (ha!) sequencing, and yet the modellers come out with such apparent nonsense all the time without much in the way of justification.
I keep hoping that given the continued failures, poor data collection techniques etc, that maybe we might get a brighter levelled up science based future....one can dream.
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!
Not in the Article that @RobD linked to. Is it somewhere else in the WA?
IANAL but it seems to me the pre-settled status is an outcome of Articles 15 and 16.
Article 16 says that people who have been here less than the 5 years will have the right to permanent residence as per Article 15 following Brexit accumulating the five years both before and after we left.
A five year temporary pre-settlement therefore covers the maximum period anyone should need to accumulate their five years since time pre-Brexit and post-Brexit are both counted. Again IANAL but allowing that pre-settled status to be made permanent, renewed or expire after five years seems to me to fully meet the obligations of Articles 15 and 16.
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.
Well let's hope it stays that way. Sure it will. Young gun like you plus all your jabs.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
No, its part of an authoritarian drive to rebalance the relationship between the executive, parliament, judiciary and citizens, with the executive taking and using more and more powers with fewer and fewer checks and balances.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
800 people a week die within 28 days of a positive test at the moment.
Sorry to hear about @MaxPB’s diagnosis. It rather seems as if the oversized reaction to the booster was in fact Covid.
I have just taken a same-day PCR and am on anxious tenterhooks waiting to see if I am an asymptomatic omnicrone.
Yeah I think being positive and having the booster together was what really wiped me out, happily today there's no symptoms. Good luck for your test, is it for flying to New York?
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."
He didn't exactly wow his own MPs last night with his "superlative" communication skills.
"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.
Hope you are following all the covid rules.....
Window open, mask on (which does make eating problematic).
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.
I've said nothing about Spain. So please do not misrepresent my views.
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?
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
You’re at it again!
The tweet implied the MP (I think he was the prat who said he wasn’t going to wear a mask?) was an idiot or lying. He did that by comparing 2021 YTD deaths from covid to road traffic.
“At the moment” would naturally be interpreted as a shorter period than 12 months.
I don’t think the MPs comments were particularly helpful or insightful, but neither was that tweet.
Sorry to hear about @MaxPB’s diagnosis. It rather seems as if the oversized reaction to the booster was in fact Covid.
I have just taken a same-day PCR and am on anxious tenterhooks waiting to see if I am an asymptomatic omnicrone.
Yeah I think being positive and having the booster together was what really wiped me out, happily today there's no symptoms. Good luck for your test, is it for flying to New York?
A positive with no symptoms is hopefully a sign that your prior jabs were still working, since I guess it was too early for your booster to have taken effect yet?
Fingers crossed you remain symptom-free from now on.
Sorry to hear about @MaxPB’s diagnosis. It rather seems as if the oversized reaction to the booster was in fact Covid.
I have just taken a same-day PCR and am on anxious tenterhooks waiting to see if I am an asymptomatic omnicrone.
Yeah I think being positive and having the booster together was what really wiped me out, happily today there's no symptoms. Good luck for your test, is it for flying to New York?
Makes me wonder about reaction i had to 2nd dose...i was wiped out for a week.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
Sorry to hear about @MaxPB’s diagnosis. It rather seems as if the oversized reaction to the booster was in fact Covid.
I have just taken a same-day PCR and am on anxious tenterhooks waiting to see if I am an asymptomatic omnicrone.
Yeah I think being positive and having the booster together was what really wiped me out, happily today there's no symptoms. Good luck for your test, is it for flying to New York?
Rather madly, I am going to Portugal for Christmas. That’s the plan. I have refused to change the plan, and que sera sera.
I’m flying direct from Lisbon thereafter, probably straight into a New York on the eve of lockdown…
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!
Not in the Article that @RobD linked to. Is it somewhere else in the WA?
IANAL but it seems to me the pre-settled status is an outcome of Articles 15 and 16.
Article 16 says that people who have been here less than the 5 years will have the right to permanent residence as per Article 15 following Brexit accumulating the five years both before and after we left.
A five year temporary pre-settlement therefore covers the maximum period anyone should need to accumulate their five years since time pre-Brexit and post-Brexit are both counted. Again IANAL but allowing that pre-settled status to be made permanent, renewed or expire after five years seems to me to fully meet the obligations of Articles 15 and 16.
But expiry of pre-settled status means that EU citizens rights are lost unless they take positive steps.
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."
Did this "sane Tory commentator" write that piece of drivel after the Peppa Pig speech?
@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
Well yes, but there is an obvious successor to his seat which takes in the two largest Moray communities, Elgin and Forres plus, from a Tory POV, some reasonable territory further west, including Nairn and Grantown.
The new Highland East and Elgin does not look good for the Tories. Current Baxter prediction:
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.
Well let's hope it stays that way. Sure it will. Young gun like you plus all your jabs.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
What they're looking at is a purely mathematical calculation based on some poorly understood factors. They're saying that the UK is currently experiencing 350k cases per day, the idea is ridiculous. We have enough same day result lateral flow testing to pick up any surge like that.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
You’re at it again!
The tweet implied the MP (I think he was the prat who said he wasn’t going to wear a mask?) was an idiot or lying. He did that by comparing 2021 YTD deaths from covid to road traffic.
“At the moment” would naturally be interpreted as a shorter period than 12 months.
I don’t think the MPs comments were particularly helpful or insightful, but neither was that tweet.
PM still not planning to announce further Covid measures today.
Jeremy Hunt says what is increasingly apparent:
Yesterday's vote "felt like it was fighting yesterday’s war - the issue now is not whether we have covid passes but whether nightclubs are able to open at all."
Hunt has been better than most other politicians on covid.
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
Boris is fighting for his political life and the only sensible target is Labour, no matter what the circumstances. Anything that plays upon Conservative divisions at this stage is a fatal mistake, so he's playing it right. It would have been very interesting if someone had simply asked "where is the chancellor of the exchequer?", but risky because there may be a bland sensible reason for his absence.
Yeah, you're probably right. He was obviously reluctant to criticise the morons behind him that thought voting against the government last night was a good idea.
PM still not planning to announce further Covid measures today.
Jeremy Hunt says what is increasingly apparent:
Yesterday's vote "felt like it was fighting yesterday’s war - the issue now is not whether we have covid passes but whether nightclubs are able to open at all."
Hunt has been better than most other politicians on covid.
If he has said that, Hunt has decided not to run IMO....
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
Nevertheless Swayne is a grade A tw*t and a one-man exemplar of the downside of our crooked voting system.
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
I am reminded of a story that was told to me by a builder. As he arrived (with his team) at the property to setup and start work, he overheard the very shouty client on the phone. To his lawyer. Arranging to start the legal proceedings against him (the builder) - so as to negotiate a reduction in the agreed price.
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."
He didn't exactly wow his own MPs last night with his "superlative" communication skills.
Note that "superlative" doesn't necessarily mean good. "Floweriest" is a superlative. As is "most opaque".
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
The old favourite gag narrative of Starmer jabbers, Boris jabs is always a big winner.
Indeed. I think Boris edged it and he really should not have done. SKS's pomposity and verbosity hold him back and dilute his punches.
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.
Well let's hope it stays that way. Sure it will. Young gun like you plus all your jabs.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
What they're looking at is a purely mathematical calculation based on some poorly understood factors. They're saying that the UK is currently experiencing 350k cases per day, the idea is ridiculous. We have enough same day result lateral flow testing to pick up any surge like that.
I am still waiting for some sensible numbers or facts from the government.
Am I going mad?
I am quite prepared to believe that omicron will cause the NHS to collapse, but nobody seems to want to show the working.
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!
Not in the Article that @RobD linked to. Is it somewhere else in the WA?
IANAL but it seems to me the pre-settled status is an outcome of Articles 15 and 16.
Article 16 says that people who have been here less than the 5 years will have the right to permanent residence as per Article 15 following Brexit accumulating the five years both before and after we left.
A five year temporary pre-settlement therefore covers the maximum period anyone should need to accumulate their five years since time pre-Brexit and post-Brexit are both counted. Again IANAL but allowing that pre-settled status to be made permanent, renewed or expire after five years seems to me to fully meet the obligations of Articles 15 and 16.
But expiry of pre-settled status means that EU citizens rights are lost unless they take positive steps.
But positive steps are required as per Article 15. Hence the deadline (at the end of June?) to take those steps.
Article 16 grants people who hadn't met the Article 15 requirements yet time to meet them, which the pre-settled status grants, but positive steps were always required. Allowing people to renew their temporary status or make it permanent meets the requirements of A15 and A16 surely?
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.
I've said nothing about Spain. So please do not misrepresent my views.
The withdrawal deal is symmetrical : what applies to Britain applies to Spain. I was merely illustrating with an example to show the absurdity of "pre-settled for life".
Your implication, to my reading, was that someone flying into Heathrow, applying for pre-settled status, and flying back out again on the same day -- as they were absolutely entitled to do, should hold that pre-settled status, and thus a right to residence in the UK, for life. And that it was mean of Britain to put any extra paperwork in their way to convert it to full settled status, because that could lead to them losing that lifetime right.
Chinese property market about to go all 2008 on us.
Belt up. The ride is about to start.
Bitcoin being worthless is just going to take a lot of money out of the black economy, hurting many drug dealers, people smugglers and beneficiaries of corruption as well as the naive. I struggle to care.
The collapse of the Chinese finance market is a much bigger concern but we are some way from that yet. The huge surpluses that China has been running means that they have almost infinite resources to address the problems if they need to do so.
Chinese property market about to go all 2008 on us.
Belt up. The ride is about to start.
BTC is still trading at nearly $50k....
Tell the Bank of England.
Past several months a load of ETFs have been authorised, big financial institutions have revealed they bought....they are leveraging against inflation. Strike network come online...
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.
Well let's hope it stays that way. Sure it will. Young gun like you plus all your jabs.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
What they're looking at is a purely mathematical calculation based on some poorly understood factors. They're saying that the UK is currently experiencing 350k cases per day, the idea is ridiculous. We have enough same day result lateral flow testing to pick up any surge like that.
I am still waiting for some sensible numbers or facts from the government.
Am I going mad?
I am quite prepared to believe that omicron will cause the NHS to collapse, but nobody seems to want to show the working.
Continued reliance on the precautionary principle in a scenario who no countries health system has yet even been materially troubled by Omicron. So we're betting that our highly uncertain modelling assumptions are right, AND that we're very near the front of a queue in which no one has yet reached that big of a mess. South African now up to 6.5k hospital beds occupied out of 120k total, which is almost exactly the levels we've been stable at for months.
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
Boris is fighting for his political life and the only sensible target is Labour, no matter what the circumstances. Anything that plays upon Conservative divisions at this stage is a fatal mistake, so he's playing it right. It would have been very interesting if someone had simply asked "where is the chancellor of the exchequer?", but risky because there may be a bland sensible reason for his absence.
Yeah, you're probably right. He was obviously reluctant to criticise the morons behind him that thought voting against the government last night was a good idea.
I'm sorry David I respect you but I 100% support those "morons" behind him.
Thank goodness there is some scrutiny of the government coming from its backbenches. What a shame there was none from the so-called Opposition.
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
I am reminded of a story that was told to me by a builder. As he arrived (with his team) at the property to setup and start work, he overheard the very shouty client on the phone. To his lawyer. Arranging to start the legal proceedings against him (the builder) - so as to negotiate a reduction in the agreed price.
My last boss was like that. His approach to everybody - even during my interview - was to negotiate as if the counterparty was a hostile litigant.
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
None of this is in any way relevant to my post.
Oh it absolutely is relevant.
Go to rural New York one weekend once you get to NYC and you would find attitudes little different to those you would find here in rural Norfolk or Stoke or rural Essex.
The rural and small or ex industrial town v big city divide within countries in the west is now more significant than the division between nations in the west in most cases
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
I am reminded of a story that was told to me by a builder. As he arrived (with his team) at the property to setup and start work, he overheard the very shouty client on the phone. To his lawyer. Arranging to start the legal proceedings against him (the builder) - so as to negotiate a reduction in the agreed price.
My last boss was like that. His approach to everybody - even during my interview - was to negotiate as if the counterparty was a hostile litigant.
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
I am reminded of a story that was told to me by a builder. As he arrived (with his team) at the property to setup and start work, he overheard the very shouty client on the phone. To his lawyer. Arranging to start the legal proceedings against him (the builder) - so as to negotiate a reduction in the agreed price.
My last boss was like that. His approach to everybody - even during my interview - was to negotiate as if the counterparty was a hostile litigant.
That’s another reason I’m going to New York.
You want to move to a less litigious country so you’re moving to the US…?
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
Deaths within 28 days of a positive test are currently just over 800 a week. So he is indeed an idiot.
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
None of this is in any way relevant to my post.
Oh it absolutely is relevant.
Go to rural New York one weekend once you get to NYC and you would find attitudes little different to those you would find here in rural Norfolk or Stoke or rural Essex
So what.
The point I was actually making is that, regrettably, the U.K. has unleashed its inner “Stoke” in a way that turns me and other migrants off.
Good luck staffing and indeed paying for your public services.
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.
Well let's hope it stays that way. Sure it will. Young gun like you plus all your jabs.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
What they're looking at is a purely mathematical calculation based on some poorly understood factors. They're saying that the UK is currently experiencing 350k cases per day, the idea is ridiculous. We have enough same day result lateral flow testing to pick up any surge like that.
I am still waiting for some sensible numbers or facts from the government.
Am I going mad?
I am quite prepared to believe that omicron will cause the NHS to collapse, but nobody seems to want to show the working.
Because right now there's no real world data to support that theory, just a lot of guess work.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
800 people a week die within 28 days of a positive test at the moment.
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
800 people a week die within 28 days of a positive test at the moment.
More than 40 of them will have died from COVID.
Plus those that died of Covid AFTER the 28 days. They are not in the figures - people always forget that.
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.”...
Where did you find this, Mr Nigel? Is it something doing the rounds in Shropshire by any chance?
Sorry to hear about @MaxPB’s diagnosis. It rather seems as if the oversized reaction to the booster was in fact Covid.
I have just taken a same-day PCR and am on anxious tenterhooks waiting to see if I am an asymptomatic omnicrone.
Same thing happened to my teenage daughter, had her 2nd jab 10 days ago and 48 hours later felt really rough; was wiped out for 2 days and assumed it was a bad reaction. Then her mother tested positive on routine LFT test (she is a teacher so assumed she picked up at school) so my daughter did one too and tested positive. So we think now my daughter picked it up at college or on the bus coincidentally at the same time as her jab.
Luckily my other daughter came back from Uni to my house first and we have escaped so far.
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.
And quite right too - far too many Brits here have played the system for years. Spain is simply applying the terms of the agreements made as do most countries in my experience. For some bizarre reason some on here think Britain should be different and let everyone stay regardless.
I was able to hear but not see PMQs today whilst driving home. I thought that SKS was poor and Boris was not a lot better. Given the hand that he had I would have expected SKS to do much better. I also would have expected Boris to be a bit more gracious about the benefits of Labour support but that is probably asking too much.
Boris is fighting for his political life and the only sensible target is Labour, no matter what the circumstances. Anything that plays upon Conservative divisions at this stage is a fatal mistake, so he's playing it right. It would have been very interesting if someone had simply asked "where is the chancellor of the exchequer?", but risky because there may be a bland sensible reason for his absence.
Yeah, you're probably right. He was obviously reluctant to criticise the morons behind him that thought voting against the government last night was a good idea.
I'm sorry David I respect you but I 100% support those "morons" behind him.
Thank goodness there is some scrutiny of the government coming from its backbenches. What a shame there was none from the so-called Opposition.
I respect your views too Philip but the government is going to get a lot of grief for not having done enough, not for having done too much. And rightly so.
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
I am reminded of a story that was told to me by a builder. As he arrived (with his team) at the property to setup and start work, he overheard the very shouty client on the phone. To his lawyer. Arranging to start the legal proceedings against him (the builder) - so as to negotiate a reduction in the agreed price.
My last boss was like that. His approach to everybody - even during my interview - was to negotiate as if the counterparty was a hostile litigant.
That’s another reason I’m going to New York.
Can't tell if that is a joke or not!?
No joke.
He was not in fact supposed to be my boss. Some kind of switcheroo happened before I started.
But in my initial interview his opening gambit was something like, “what the fuck makes you think you’re qualified to work here?”
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
None of this is in any way relevant to my post.
Oh it absolutely is relevant.
Go to rural New York one weekend once you get to NYC and you would find attitudes little different to those you would find here in rural Norfolk or Stoke or rural Essex
So what.
The point I was actually making is that, regrettably, the U.K. has unleashed its inner “Stoke” in a way that turns me and other migrants off.
Good luck staffing and indeed paying for your public services.
So what? The point is if you wanted to avoid BrexitUK you could just as easily go to inner London or inner Manchester than NYC.
You will find rural, small town Trump voting America just as pro tighter immigration controls as rural, small town Brexit and Tory voting UK
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.
Well let's hope it stays that way. Sure it will. Young gun like you plus all your jabs.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
What they're looking at is a purely mathematical calculation based on some poorly understood factors. They're saying that the UK is currently experiencing 350k cases per day, the idea is ridiculous. We have enough same day result lateral flow testing to pick up any surge like that.
I am still waiting for some sensible numbers or facts from the government.
Am I going mad?
I am quite prepared to believe that omicron will cause the NHS to collapse, but nobody seems to want to show the working.
Because right now there's no real world data to support that theory, just a lot of guess work.
Sure. But there are reasonable estimates, and confidence intervals etc. Admittedly I’m not 24/7 on the news, but I’d like to think I would have picked up a sane and rational justification for the government’s measures.
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
None of this is in any way relevant to my post.
Oh it absolutely is relevant.
Go to rural New York one weekend once you get to NYC and you would find attitudes little different to those you would find here in rural Norfolk or Stoke or rural Essex
So what.
The point I was actually making is that, regrettably, the U.K. has unleashed its inner “Stoke” in a way that turns me and other migrants off.
Good luck staffing and indeed paying for your public services.
So what? The point is if you wanted to avoid BrexitUK you could just as easily go to inner London or inner Manchester than NYC.
You will find rural, small town Trump voting America just as pro tighter immigration controls as rural, small town Brexit and Tory voting UK
Epping is a hell of a lot closer to inner London than Bum****, Indiana, is to NYC.
This lady seems to be something of a heroine in the antivax movement. I can see why; she has some very convincing arguments.
Nat @Arwenstar Would you ever take a shit in the street in broad daylight in full view of everyone? You wouldn’t. Because it would be disgusting and undignified. So why on earth would you show your vaccination card to get inside a theatre? https://twitter.com/Arwenstar/status/1471115539804209156
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?
Selection bias.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
I am reminded of a story that was told to me by a builder. As he arrived (with his team) at the property to setup and start work, he overheard the very shouty client on the phone. To his lawyer. Arranging to start the legal proceedings against him (the builder) - so as to negotiate a reduction in the agreed price.
My last boss was like that. His approach to everybody - even during my interview - was to negotiate as if the counterparty was a hostile litigant.
That’s another reason I’m going to New York.
Can't tell if that is a joke or not!?
No joke.
He was not in fact supposed to be my boss. Some kind of switcheroo happened before I started.
But in my initial interview his opening gambit was something like, “what the fuck makes you think you’re qualified to work here?”
You clearly know the likes of Trump are permanently in the New York court system, so whilst the UK boss may be annoying, and there may be other good reasons for moving to NY, avoiding the use of frivolous law suits in business is not a coherent reason to move there.
Comments
The rest of us are going to crack on.
You would think that the ONS would pick that up though.
It is odd that we have such excellent statistical monitoring through the ONS and via the Dashboard and world-beating (ha!) sequencing, and yet the modellers come out with such apparent nonsense all the time without much in the way of justification.
By the time we get to the proposed Sage lockdown on 5 January, there will be 537.6 million new cases that day.
But based on a quick read I think the UK may struggle (although I don’t think it an outrage per @Cyclefree as UK approach is a reasonable administrative proposal even if it doesn’t ultimately work)
Basically EU citizens have existing rights to reside preserved. If they hit 5 years continuous residency they can apply for permanent status. Continuous residency determined in accordance with another directive referenced
So:
- Reasonable to request pre-settled status application as a way to have a record of people in the UK at the critical point in time
- Reasonable to have a 5 year continuous residency requirement Uk achieve permanent status
Questions:
- The fundamental questions are (a) does pre-settled status expire and what are the implications; and (b) what happens if continuous residency is lost
(a) instinctively feels like a breach of preservation of existing rights - I would suggest an automatic roll-over for 12 months, together with a fee. Not unreasonable to expect EU citizens to regularise their position. But an automatic loss of rights seems like a breach
(b) don’t know the underlying directive, but seems a stretch that pre-settled status is preserved if someone established residence elsewhere. It wasn’t intended as a permanent option to move to the UK
Sometimes, the reasons stink.
I am starting to wonder if the estimates of 300 million cases of Whine-The-Pooh by lunchtime tomorrow are merely predictions of the possible.
“At the moment” is the key piece
Road deaths @2000 pa = 40 pw
Covid deaths are c 100-150 at the moment (from memory) but I believe those include “with covid”. *If* you make the distinction between “with” & “of” ( I don’t) it is plausible that “of” deaths are less than 40 pw
It would have been very interesting if someone had simply asked "where is the chancellor of the exchequer?", but risky because there may be a bland sensible reason for his absence.
It rather seems as if the oversized reaction to the booster was in fact Covid.
I have just taken a same-day PCR and am on anxious tenterhooks waiting to see if I am an asymptomatic omnicrone.
You only see the disputes that end up in court
Article 16 says that people who have been here less than the 5 years will have the right to permanent residence as per Article 15 following Brexit accumulating the five years both before and after we left.
A five year temporary pre-settlement therefore covers the maximum period anyone should need to accumulate their five years since time pre-Brexit and post-Brexit are both counted. Again IANAL but allowing that pre-settled status to be made permanent, renewed or expire after five years seems to me to fully meet the obligations of Articles 15 and 16.
Yes, I know it has a ceiling. It rockets then shallows then peaks then drops away. Question is where will it peak and how quickly. What they are looking at is clearly scaring them. Should I also be concerned? Yes, I think so. I think it makes sense to be a bit worried. Not so much about the virus per se as an individual but about the NHS falling over and/or about another (proper) lockdown. I still don't expect this, on balance, but I'd be pretty sure that if they do it it'll be because there's no realistic practical alternative. The politics, esp after yesterday's vote, steers heavily away from it.
The nurse was not impressed.
More than 40 of them will have died from COVID.
“At the moment” would naturally be interpreted as a shorter period than 12 months.
I don’t think the MPs comments were particularly helpful or insightful, but neither was that tweet.
Fingers crossed you remain symptom-free from now on.
*blushes*
I’m flying direct from Lisbon thereafter, probably straight into a New York on the eve of lockdown…
SNP 47%
Con 37%
Lab 6%
LD 4%
Jeremy Hunt says what is increasingly apparent:
Yesterday's vote "felt like it was fighting yesterday’s war - the issue now is not whether we have covid passes but whether nightclubs are able to open at all."
Hunt has been better than most other politicians on covid.
Bitcoin could be “worthless”? Who knew?
Chinese property market about to go all 2008 on us.
Belt up. The ride is about to start.
Am I going mad?
I am quite prepared to believe that omicron will cause the NHS to collapse, but nobody seems to want to show the working.
Article 16 grants people who hadn't met the Article 15 requirements yet time to meet them, which the pre-settled status grants, but positive steps were always required. Allowing people to renew their temporary status or make it permanent meets the requirements of A15 and A16 surely?
Your implication, to my reading, was that someone flying into Heathrow, applying for pre-settled status, and flying back out again on the same day -- as they were absolutely entitled to do, should hold that pre-settled status, and thus a right to residence in the UK, for life. And that it was mean of Britain to put any extra paperwork in their way to convert it to full settled status, because that could lead to them losing that lifetime right.
if that reading was wrong, I apologise.
Who's going to be holding it when the music stops?
The collapse of the Chinese finance market is a much bigger concern but we are some way from that yet. The huge surpluses that China has been running means that they have almost infinite resources to address the problems if they need to do so.
Thank goodness there is some scrutiny of the government coming from its backbenches. What a shame there was none from the so-called Opposition.
His approach to everybody - even during my interview - was to negotiate as if the counterparty was a hostile litigant.
That’s another reason I’m going to New York.
Go to rural New York one weekend once you get to NYC and you would find attitudes little different to those you would find here in rural Norfolk or Stoke or rural Essex.
The rural and small or ex industrial town v big city divide within countries in the west is now more significant than the division between nations in the west in most cases
The point I was actually making is that, regrettably, the U.K. has unleashed its inner “Stoke” in a way that turns me and other migrants off.
Good luck staffing and indeed paying for your public services.
Nobody tell Raab..
More seriously these stats are pointless.
Luckily my other daughter came back from Uni to my house first and we have escaped so far.
He will be accompanied by England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty and NHS England’s medical director of primary care Dr Nikki Kanani
He was not in fact supposed to be my boss. Some kind of switcheroo happened before I started.
But in my initial interview his opening gambit was something like, “what the fuck makes you think you’re qualified to work here?”
up just a little bit week-on-week from 3,077
9.1% positivity
You will find rural, small town Trump voting America just as pro tighter immigration controls as rural, small town Brexit and Tory voting UK
🏴 548,039
🏴 54,234
🏴 31,916
NI 22,522
Thats wirh queues round the block, system full up etc Never getting million per day, definitely not 1.5 million are we.....
Nat
@Arwenstar
Would you ever take a shit in the street in broad daylight in full view of everyone? You wouldn’t. Because it would be disgusting and undignified. So why on earth would you show your vaccination card to get inside a theatre?
https://twitter.com/Arwenstar/status/1471115539804209156