Only this government could get me cheering on Sadiq Khan. I mean, FFS. The woman was beyond useless. All she was good at was covering up earlier cock ups and ultimately she even messed that up.
We should be forever grateful that Khan got Dick out.
The Ukrainian claims that the IAEA mission has been misled sound like a tacit admission that the UN will be finding against their claim that the Russians are basing artillery at the plant (perhaps the Russians were doing so but have pulled it out?), and possibly also the claim that the Russians are bombarding themselves there, rather than the more intuitively plausible version that Ukrainians are bombarding Russians.
But I wonder how far the IAEA report will actually go - the fact that they're keeping a mission there permanently may be what matters. If the net outcome is that the Russians don't base offensive weapons there (whether they did before or not) and the Ukrainians don't shell it (ditto), that's probably a good thing regardless of the rights and wrongs of the claims - an example of a UN agency using its neutrality effectively.
The truly weird thing is that this plant is still providing electricity to most of southern Ukraine. I mean, why? These countries are at war. Why is Russia still giving the Ukranians power? I just don't get it.
I assume it probably provides power to Mariupol, Melitopol, Kherson and Crimea along with Ukranian held territories.
Only this government could get me cheering on Sadiq Khan. I mean, FFS. The woman was beyond useless. All she was good at was covering up earlier cock ups and ultimately she even messed that up.
We should be favour grateful that Khan got Dick out.
The article starts with the statement that Dick left because of pressure from Khan - that surely implies that the processes would have been started if she didn't quickly leave - so the point that process wasn't followed makes sense - Khan hadn't kicked the removal process off..
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
If the future government changes the law, then that's a matter for Parliament to discuss.
But if they do then they shouldn't change it retrospectively, so won't be much use to Begum.
On Pannick, should the government be representing a minister in this way? Johnson is not up in front of parliament as a minister, he is up as an MP. Misleading the House is a blanket rule that applies equally to any MP, there is no specific section on the PM.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
A plaything of two powerful political parties managed through patronage and fear, not a citizens assembly.
Thing is, I rather suspect the average MP cares rather more than the man in the street about climate change. It is somewhere where despite the impression to the contrary, politicians and the state have led rather than followed. If a citizens' assembly better reflected the consensus on carbon, I suspect rather less would get done than is currently being done. Almost makes you think ER are just in it for the fun of it.
Without getting into the climate change debate either way (fwiw I think we are changing society lightly too slowly but at least we are changing and the forces asking for more change will get their way, just not at the pace they want), a citizens assembly is very different to the House of Commons.
I would like to see perhaps 15% of the Commons and 30% of the Lords chosen by sortition to create independents that the parties have to win over by argument rather than party management.
Well I do see the distinction there. What you are arguing for is actually less democracy. Though not without precedent - there are echoes of ancient Athens there. It's an interesting idea and perhaps next time TSE feels the need to write another thread about AV we could raise this as a discussion point.
Different democracy, not less. Its swings and roundabouts, sortition improves representation and weakens the power of the party elites at the expense of less of a connection between manifestos and a parliament. Democracy is more than just counting votes and getting a mandate otherwise Putin would be democratic.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
There is no moral high ground here, but we didn't de jure make her stateless.
On Pannick, should the government be representing a minister in this way? Johnson is not up in front of parliament as a minister, he is up as an MP. Misleading the House is a blanket rule that applies equally to any MP, there is no specific section on the PM.
Not happening. Johnson himself is instructing Pannick.
This is being set up for a fabulous court showdown. Johnson is found by Parliament to have broken its rules and sanctioned. At which point the "enemies of the people" swing into action to take the undemocratically-elected big Tory majority Commons to court for its crimes against the people. Or something.
Literally everyone knows he lied to parliament. Repeatedly. There are various excuses that can be proposed for why, and various pinheads to be danced on as to why sanctions shouldn't be applied, but "it must go to judicial review?" It isn't a legal matter...
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Because I'm not a ban hammer word. Unlike the bullying monster in the Home Office.
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Is this the source? Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
Only this government could get me cheering on Sadiq Khan. I mean, FFS. The woman was beyond useless. All she was good at was covering up earlier cock ups and ultimately she even messed that up.
We should be forever grateful that Khan got Dick out.
Why I am not surprised TSE puts a knob gag in at some point.
But thinking about it, we both seem to be on the same political page eagles - we should be voting Conservatives because conservatism is all about decent and respectful leadership setting example, but this lot have had no decency and respect about them for years now, so our vote is with libdems? They seem to have forgotten there us no “I” in team or lead by examples!
When I’m President Queen of Yorkshire, I’m thinking of giving you some sort of role.
Only this government could get me cheering on Sadiq Khan. I mean, FFS. The woman was beyond useless. All she was good at was covering up earlier cock ups and ultimately she even messed that up.
We should be forever grateful that Khan got Dick out.
As Windsor concludes, Khan shouldn't have done so, but then it can be seen as a very, very small indiscretion.
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Is this the source? Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
No but that's the book. Paragraph one doesn't change my assertion. Paragraph two does not specify a like for like replacement of funds TO WALES so I stand by my assertion. So to contend your conclusion, not really.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Because I'm not a ban hammer word. Unlike the bullying monster in the Home Office.
Always wanting to be holier than thou is pretty bad hammer word-ish.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
I spent half an hour Monday talking to a lovely woman about sexed semen and dairy IVF. She was really nice and enthusiastic about it.
He is saying what needs to be said. Basically the whole point about our system is that parliament (not government, and not the courts) is the supreme authority in the UK. This is what makes the trivialisation of parliament so significant. The moment it matters people can't believe that such an apparently party spirited, biased and rather dim assembly is our top cat and even beyond the courts power to intervene.
Lord Pannick of course knows what he is doing; he has been hired to fire a shot across the bows and has done so.
But, as with Trump only on a smaller scale, parliament's power over government and its own members could lead to an interesting constitutional showdown in parliament and the courts. In legal terms this particular one would make the prorogation case look quite minor.
Boris shares this trait with Trump. They are, knowingly or not, moral disciples of David Hume, a great man whose moral philosophy is wrong in every particular, whose comment
"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"
He is saying what needs to be said. Basically the whole point about our system is that parliament (not government, and not the courts) is the supreme authority in the UK. This is what makes the trivialisation of parliament so significant. The moment it matters people can't believe that such an apparently party spirited, biased and rather dim assembly is our top cat and even beyond the courts power to intervene.
Lord Pannick of course knows what he is doing; he has been hired to fire a shot across the bows and has done so.
But, as with Trump only on a smaller scale, parliament's power over government and its own members could lead to an interesting constitutional showdown in parliament and the courts. In legal terms this particular one would make the prorogation case look quite minor.
Boris shares this trait with Trump. They are, knowingly or not, moral disciples of David Hume, a great man whose moral philosophy is wrong in every particular, whose comment
"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"
says it all about the narcissistic ego.
I just want to see the Daily Mail's coverage as Johnson takes Parliament to court. The direct reverse of its Enemies of the People coverage.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
I do recall him - oh gosh yes - but no I haven't spotted a retread. And I reckon I would have - he was pretty distinctive, not one of the harder ones to get.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
Untrue.
You admit that there is a disagreement between what the Bangladeshi government said about whether she was a citizen and what Bangladeshi law said about it.
And you've taken the side of the politicians over the law.
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
I do recall him - oh gosh yes - but no I haven't spotted a retread. And I reckon I would have - he was pretty distinctive, not one of the harder ones to get.
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
I don’t think so. Doesn’t the notification only kick in if the parents citizenship is by descent only?
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
Red just on the verge of orange?
Indeed. I have shorted that man bigly. My money is with the angels this time.
Although if we end up with DeSantis I guess joy could be muted.
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Is this the source? Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
No but that's the book. Paragraph one doesn't change my assertion. Paragraph two does not specify a like for like replacement of funds TO WALES so I stand by my assertion. So to contend your conclusion, not really.
As we all know these people will say any old shit before the event.
'Brexit could give Scotland new immigration powers - Gove
Scotland will get more powers if Britain votes for Brexit, including the ability for Holyrood to control immigration, Michael Gove said today. The justice secretary and co-chairman of Vote Leave made an attempt to attract the support of advocates of Scottish independence and further devolution to vote for Brexit.'
'Michael Gove: Brexit offers the chance to take back control of our own borders
And on June 23, we can also take the opportunity to strengthen the Scottish Parliament. Donald Dewar, the founder of Holyrood, future-proofed devolution. He constructed the Scotland Act deliberately to make sure that when new powers emerged in the future, powers that neither he nor anyone else could foresee at the time, they would automatically become the domain of Holyrood rather than Westminster. The device he used was simple: a list of reserved powers in the Scotland Act – anything that fell outside that list would be devolved...
...The same will happen with those powers currently wielded over Scotland by the European Commission in Brussels. Inheriting fishing policy, in particular, gives Scottish Ministers at Holyrood a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reinvigorate an industry that has been decimated by the European Common Fisheries Policy.'
He is saying what needs to be said. Basically the whole point about our system is that parliament (not government, and not the courts) is the supreme authority in the UK. This is what makes the trivialisation of parliament so significant. The moment it matters people can't believe that such an apparently party spirited, biased and rather dim assembly is our top cat and even beyond the courts power to intervene.
Lord Pannick of course knows what he is doing; he has been hired to fire a shot across the bows and has done so.
But, as with Trump only on a smaller scale, parliament's power over government and its own members could lead to an interesting constitutional showdown in parliament and the courts. In legal terms this particular one would make the prorogation case look quite minor.
Boris shares this trait with Trump. They are, knowingly or not, moral disciples of David Hume, a great man whose moral philosophy is wrong in every particular, whose comment
"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"
says it all about the narcissistic ego.
I expect he'd lose, since as with Miller II, the courts are going to find parliament is essentially the ultimate authority. Public perception is neither here nor there since if the public doesn't like a particular parliament they'll change it at the next election.
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
I don’t think so. Doesn’t the notification only kick in if the parents citizenship is by descent only?
Yes... and it is for her right? Because she wasn't born in Bangladesh...
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
Poor guy was sooo happy about Johnson's midas touch, and fell apart when it did
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
On Pannick, should the government be representing a minister in this way? Johnson is not up in front of parliament as a minister, he is up as an MP. Misleading the House is a blanket rule that applies equally to any MP, there is no specific section on the PM.
Not happening. Johnson himself is instructing Pannick.
Though how it ends up on a government.uk website is anyone's guess
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
Untrue.
You admit that there is a disagreement between what the Bangladeshi government said about whether she was a citizen and what Bangladeshi law said about it.
And you've taken the side of the politicians over the law.
Yup. Because she is not a Bangladeshi citizen as a result of the actions of their politicians. She is stateless because her supposed state does not recognise her. Its possible that position could be challenged in Bangladeshi courts. Its possible she could win. And presumably they simply throw up another barrier.
We have washed our hands of a citizen. Its hypocritical to complain about another state doing the same. Especially when her British citizenship was established and practical and her supposedly Bangladeshi citizenship only theoretical. "But the law says so" - and how many times do British people have to go to court to have "but the law says so" actually applied?
In a sense, it does not matter if Begum was/is a British citizen or a Bangladeshi one. She is/was possibly both.
If she committed crimes - allegedly - then that is up to the Syrian government to try her and we all follow on from there. If the alleged crimes were allegedly committed in Iraq, then the trial is up to them.
I hold no brief for alleged criminals, and moreover think that the idea of dual nationality ought to be abolished. Does a person belong with us, or to us, or not?
Yes, I'm more confident than ever about Trump not winning but I'm not so sure about my 'up to now' opinion that Biden won't run again. It's looking like he plans to, isn't it.
He's filed. I've been backing him for some time. None of his problems look existential in the way Truss' are.
Yep looking a solid bet. With his recovering position the main question now is probably around health and this doesn't justify how long his odds are.
My US betting is mainly about shorting DT but if I were to focus on Biden I'd probably back him for the Nom rather than the WH. Reason being I'm expecting the GOP to not end up with guaranteed loser Trump as their candidate.
But you think Trump probably WILL be the GOP nominee, don't you, and if I had that view I'd be right now piling on Biden for the WH.
Yeah I'm actually underwater right now on the presidency due to laying Desantis at longer odds a while back
Trump +202 Desantis -777 Biden +796 Harris +574 Newsom -804 Pence -899 Obama -418 Clinton -394 The Rock -893 Tucker -214 Liz Cheney -885 Manchin -781 O' Rourke +1104 (Backed and laid at long odds)
Hoping Crist does me a big favour in November.
Which is possible, I guess.
So it looks like you totally ignored my long odds tip on Michelle O and went and laid her instead!
My worst betting outcome is Trump goes all the way. Would cost me more than your biggest loss there - quite a lot more. My best outcome is he runs but fails to get either the GOP nomination or the presidency. 2nd best outcome is he ends up not running.
But I think only a compelling legal or health event will stop him running. Just craves attention above all else.
Pence should definitely be the biggest red in this market.
I've only got 1 red but it's a big one.
I guess your red is closer to his orange than my green, and its a bet I would be delighted to lose. It is also a good job that a previous prolific poster has retired or you might get drawn into an argument over whether he is big or just unusually muscular.
Yes where has that chap gone? Perhaps he'll return one day. I do hope so. We had such a nice thing going on.
Remember @BluestBlue ? Hasn't posted for over a year - unless, using your legendary powers, you have detected a name-change?
Poor guy was sooo happy about Johnson's midas touch, and fell apart when it did
BlueestBlue was witty. Come back BB.
Didn't he leave before you joined?
Or maybe my sense of PB time is malfunctioning.
No. I remember liking bluest blue jokes because they made me laugh 🙂
There is some way of looking up date of someone’s last post? Because I didn’t post first post till after my birthday, so it must have been October - to help you reset your PB time.
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
I don’t think so. Doesn’t the notification only kick in if the parents citizenship is by descent only?
Yes... and it is for her right? Because she wasn't born in Bangladesh...
I don't think so, since the "if" condition isn't met. "Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only" - since both of her parents were born in Bangladesh their citizenship was not by descent only, so what proceeds doesn't apply to her. It would apply to her children, since her citizenship is by descent only.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
I personally think its immoral to make people stateless. In line with the UN convention we signed pledging not to make someone stateless. If that is claiming the "moral high ground" from the perspective of pinhead dancers then I can live with that.
I know the use of de jure and not de facto with regards to this specific law. Thats the letter of the law. But the spirit of the law is to prevent us making people stateless. Which we have de facto.
In a sense, it does not matter if Begum was/is a British citizen or a Bangladeshi one. She is/was possibly both.
If she committed crimes - allegedly - then that is up to the Syrian government to try her and we all follow on from there. If the alleged crimes were allegedly committed in Iraq, then the trial is up to them.
I hold no brief for alleged criminals, and moreover think that the idea of dual nationality ought to be abolished. Does a person belong with us, or to us, or not?
Hmmm, "I hold no brief for alleged criminals", is not the work of good honest yeoman Liberal stock.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Without going into the merits of the Begum case, I am uncomfortable that the decision to revoke her citizenship was made by a politician on the basis of populist public opinion.
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
I don’t think so. Doesn’t the notification only kick in if the parents citizenship is by descent only?
Yes... and it is for her right? Because she wasn't born in Bangladesh...
The way I read it is that Begum’s *children* don’t have automatic citizenship because she is by descent with no other meaningful connection to Bangladesh
But her parents were born there and lived in Bangladesh until adulthood so presumable were more than “citizens by descent only” which implies a more limited relationship
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Or flattering opinion pieces from the worthy?
It isn't that long ago that no UK government - even an objectively right wing one like in the 1980s - would do the things done by this government. Or when a government as objectively authoritarian as Blair's proposes something objectionable parliament sets aside the huge government majority and says no.
But now? The more outrageous the better, and if we get media coverage of the people we disagree with being morally outraged by our latest moral outrage, all the better.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
Nah. That way lies madness. The law is the law. If I break it or rely upon it then I expect it to be enforced as it is written and without favour or prejudice. The only people who should be able to interpret the law, in the last resort, under our system are the courts and that is what they did.
I am not saying this in support of one side or the other in the Begum case, rather making a point that is important to me as someone who wants our laws to be limited but effective. As soon as you start talking about the 'spirit' of the law you open the door to the authorities acting beyond their legally defined remit.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
Why can’t GB News do anything that’s not plain weird? Why hire a pollster that says everything your news channel pushes is hated and stupid?
Do we really have to enter these into the wiki page so the graph goes into such wild misleading gap 🙁
The Labour 42 looks about right. Without knowing how their large others break down (oooer missus), not sure what to make of Conservatives 25, but that does look odd.
What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.
“What we can say is that all that free publicity (which is the point of the current mad process) isn't helping the Conservative cause.”
Yes I like that line. It’s not so much moments of blue on blue, that mostly came from Truss bluntness, it’s how we have gleaned from what we are hearing to form an opinion.
Some posters push the idea we haven’t a clue what Truss and Kwarzy are going to do yet, it might well be gorgeous one nation response, we have to wait and see. That sort of insults me a bit. The whole flipping point of two months of campaigning is to sell yourself and your approach to things - I should be able to draw on this, and also a fair idea about politicians strengths weaknesses etc from before campaign even started - it’s a bit insulting to tell me I currently can have no idea and need to wait and see. I diplomatically wont mention the posters who push this.
But it does point to ordinary everyday voters liking the idea of a frozen cap, and not liking the Thatcherite response to the idea having made a quite sudden change in the polling.
I’d love to know how Liz proposes to backtrack on the supposed 140 or so new policy announcements she made during the ridiculously long campaign
I think people are expecting her to run the country differently than she ran her campaign. I don’t think she will.
The cabinet appointments will be our first indication
“I’d love to know how Liz proposes to backtrack on the supposed 140 or so new policy announcements she made”
RUSI reckon Truss commitment to spend 3% of national income on defence by 2030 would cost an extra £157bn. This would be the biggest increase since the 1950s and there has been little attempt to prepare the public for the "sacrifices" involved in meeting it.
More immediately though, both party and voters are expecting tax cuts and credit crisis handouts. And both the voters, media and markets are looking for these policies to be properly and sanely funded to avoid debt, austerity and spending cuts - there will be immediate market and polling trouble if how it’s paid for doesn’t add up.
To go back to have RUSI phrased it - so far there has been “little attempt to prepare the public for the sacrifices" to come. We have to expect a very different tone from Truss government next week?
She was responsible for bullying someone of their job and then Khan uses the Boris Johnson/Ian Blair precedent and that's outrageous.
For the first time in my life I want the Tory party to lose a general election.
Priti is just sorting things out before her cabinet career finishes on Tuesday....
I think that's true, and I think that it's unfortunate. Patel has long had a diabolical press. She's partly put herself in such a position, but it's far from just that.
In other news it seems if a modern day Guy Fawkes chooses now to strike he'll not only save the country many billions in that a new building could be built, but he'll also happily eradiate three idiots that have super-glued themselves to a fire risk.
An interesting question is: Would the Hale court have agreed with @RochdalePioneers and essentially do a Roe vs Wade (The original US judgement) using slightly shaky legal reasoning to arrive at what the worthy see as a morally correct conclusion ?
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Or flattering opinion pieces from the worthy?
It isn't that long ago that no UK government - even an objectively right wing one like in the 1980s - would do the things done by this government. Or when a government as objectively authoritarian as Blair's proposes something objectionable parliament sets aside the huge government majority and says no.
But now? The more outrageous the better, and if we get media coverage of the people we disagree with being morally outraged by our latest moral outrage, all the better.
I have the impression that you've memory holed a lot of things that the Blair government actually did do.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
I spent half an hour Monday talking to a lovely woman about sexed semen and dairy IVF. She was really nice and enthusiastic about it.
Had not come across this (geddit) until today. How is it achieved? And does it work for human sperm? Would be a market in many countries.
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Is this the source? Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
Paragraph one doesn't change my assertion. Paragraph two does not specify a like for like replacement of funds TO WALES so I stand by my assertion.
Your assertion was that "Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU", and paragraph 1 shows he hasn't admitted that. In addition, the quote's big "admission" is that the Conservative government didn't intend to do something they never said they intended to do, only what "many people" (who remain unnamed) "took [a completely unrelated statement] to mean".
Bangladesh might have belatedly amended its law, but has Pakistan. Unless it has done so then the law courts here determine anyone who has Pakistani parents is de jure a Pakistani citizen....
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
I spent half an hour Monday talking to a lovely woman about sexed semen and dairy IVF. She was really nice and enthusiastic about it.
Had not come across this (geddit) until today. How is it achieved? And does it work for human sperm? Would be a market in many countries.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
I spent half an hour Monday talking to a lovely woman about sexed semen and dairy IVF. She was really nice and enthusiastic about it.
Had not come across this (geddit) until today. How is it achieved? And does it work for human sperm? Would be a market in many countries.
It does but it's illegal here
Do you know how it works? I saw a number of up to 85%, which is good, but not perfect.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
That what is quite possibly now the world's most populous country with significantly over 1.4 billion people in it has overtaken in nominal GDP a country with 67 million people in it is neither bad news, a shock, or unwelcome.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Or flattering opinion pieces from the worthy?
It isn't that long ago that no UK government - even an objectively right wing one like in the 1980s - would do the things done by this government. Or when a government as objectively authoritarian as Blair's proposes something objectionable parliament sets aside the huge government majority and says no.
But now? The more outrageous the better, and if we get media coverage of the people we disagree with being morally outraged by our latest moral outrage, all the better.
I have the impression that you've memory holed a lot of things that the Blair government actually did do.
I was referring specifically to the 90 days detention proposal - an outrage - which got crushed by parliament despite the chunky Labour majority in late 2005.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
If someone has dual citizenship and we revoke UK citizenship, and then the other citizenship is subsequently revoked, who has made the individual stateless?
An interesting question is: Would the Hale court have agreed with @RochdalePioneers and essentially do a Roe vs Wade (The original US judgement) using slightly shaky legal reasoning to arrive at what the worthy see as a morally correct conclusion ?
I do wonder why none of the "activist lawyers" have taken this to court in Bangladesh...
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
I spent half an hour Monday talking to a lovely woman about sexed semen and dairy IVF. She was really nice and enthusiastic about it.
Had not come across this (geddit) until today. How is it achieved? And does it work for human sperm? Would be a market in many countries.
Don’t know the specifics (electrophoresis may be?). But she’s active in 20 countries and responsible for 15% of AI implantation of cows
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
Untrue.
You admit that there is a disagreement between what the Bangladeshi government said about whether she was a citizen and what Bangladeshi law said about it.
And you've taken the side of the politicians over the law.
Yup.
Which you would never do for the politicians in government in, to again take a country completely at random, the United Kingdom.
You're defending the indefensible as stubbornly as HYUFD ever does.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
And the UK Courts have quite rightly said they will stick to the rule of law and not sugarcoat or vindicate countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh that violate the rule, so sticking with the rule of law is our courts established spirit here. That is long established precedent.
She is a citizen there. You can keep saying she isn't until you're blue in the face, but the law is the law and that is how the courts should and must operate.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
If someone has dual citizenship and we revoke UK citizenship, and then the other citizenship is subsequently revoked, who has made the individual stateless?
She didn't have dual citizenship according to the other state at the time we acted. Its fine us saying "she is Bangladeshi" but if Bangladesh disagrees then we can't say "no, we are right and they are wrong" however a dry read of the law might look.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
I don't think Begum has ever held Bangladeshi citizenship, though at one time she may have been eligible to apply. Eligibility is not the same as possession.
She used to be a full British citizen, but now is stateless.
The factual background Ms Begum's father was born in Bangladesh in 1958. He came to the United Kingdom in November 1975 (when he was granted indefinite leave to enter) and he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1993. He has never naturalised as a British citizen. Her mother was born in 1964 in Bangladesh and married her father there in March 1980. She obtained indefinite leave to enter on coming to the United Kingdom to join Ms Begum's father in November 1981. She naturalised in November 2009.
Ms Begum was born on 25 August 1999 in the United Kingdom, where she was brought up. At birth, she held British citizenship under section 1(1) of the BNA because her parents were both settled in the United Kingdom. SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
"5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."
So I suppose depends whether her parents notified the Bangladesh Mission in London?
As an aside - how have I ended up researching this? The internet is an incredible tool, but I should really be doing something else.
I don’t think so. Doesn’t the notification only kick in if the parents citizenship is by descent only?
Yes... and it is for her right? Because she wasn't born in Bangladesh...
I don't think so, since the "if" condition isn't met. "Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only" - since both of her parents were born in Bangladesh their citizenship was not by descent only, so what proceeds doesn't apply to her. It would apply to her children, since her citizenship is by descent only.
Ah okay - looks like I am misreading this entirely.
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
I am currently eating a nice steak to help save the cows from the vicious dairy trade.
I guess you know this, but that steak (or rather it's previous owner) was not a cow that had been milked.
So you mean I have not just saved the cow from future milking but any milking through their life at all? Why aren't we encouraged to eat more steak?
Did you drop out of biology classes before O level? It tends to be male calves that end up as beef, and they are pretty milking proof
Though I think UK dairy has pretty much gone over to sexed semen which reduces the male calf output
Please! I’m still eating lunch.
I spent half an hour Monday talking to a lovely woman about sexed semen and dairy IVF. She was really nice and enthusiastic about it.
Had not come across this (geddit) until today. How is it achieved? And does it work for human sperm? Would be a market in many countries.
It does but it's illegal here
Do you know how it works? I saw a number of up to 85%, which is good, but not perfect.
Flow cytometry, apparently. Or you can have a race - males swim faster.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
And the UK Courts have quite rightly said they will stick to the rule of law and not sugarcoat or vindicate countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh that violate the rule, so sticking with the rule of law is our courts established spirit here. That is long established precedent.
She is a citizen there. You can keep saying she isn't until you're blue in the face, but the law is the law and that is how the courts should and must operate.
The rule of law applies to our own laws. We can't apply our standards to other states who think differently - are we proposing to take Bangladesh to court for denying her legal citizenship having just denied her our legal citizenship?
Its probably a good job you are only a keyboard warrior and don't actually have any real world experience of anything. Like HY you can make all the blustering statements you like, doesn't make them actually apply. Like you read of the English rule of law on Bangladeshi law. They don't have to give a rat fuck what a court here thinks just as we don't of what their courts say about us.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Or flattering opinion pieces from the worthy?
Show me some of that and I'll also be unimpressed.
But here it's the other way. Javid shafting Begun reminds me of Ed Balls and Sharon Shoesmith.
Lab or Con, doesn't matter, the government shouldn't go after individuals to please the red tops.
On Pannick, should the government be representing a minister in this way? Johnson is not up in front of parliament as a minister, he is up as an MP. Misleading the House is a blanket rule that applies equally to any MP, there is no specific section on the PM.
Not happening. Johnson himself is instructing Pannick.
Though how it ends up on a government.uk website is anyone's guess
I sincerely hope he's paid personally for that opinion.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
If someone has dual citizenship and we revoke UK citizenship, and then the other citizenship is subsequently revoked, who has made the individual stateless?
She didn't have dual citizenship according to the other state at the time we acted. Its fine us saying "she is Bangladeshi" but if Bangladesh disagrees then we can't say "no, we are right and they are wrong" however a dry read of the law might look.
Its an "oh yes she is, oh no she isn't" argument.
No, it's a legal argument and that needs to be settled by what the law says.
If the law says she's Bangladeshi and Bangladesh refuse to honour her rights then maybe somewhere might be willing to give her asylum. There's a process for that too, but she's not a UK citizen as the law was followed here.
I personally think its immoral to make people stateless.
You could solve this by making everyone a citizen of the world.
Has she got any recourse as a citizen of the EU when her UK citizenship was revoked? Could she be the EU's problem rather than ours?
I still can't see why we can't
1) Let her in 2) Arrest her and try her for War Crimes. She stated in a TV interview that she committed them....
Because the HS judged she’d be a risk to national security even after her sentence
The western powers did a decent job of denazifying Germany post war. The international community has done a piss poor job dejihadiying ISIS lunatics.
Both East and West essentially ignored the mid and low level actor sin the Nazi regime - too many of them to do much with. Unless you put sizeable percentages of the population behind bars.
De-nazifying the following generations - something was done there.
Prevent and other programs have done something in this country. But that still leaves the requirement for the occasional Narwal horn.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
And the UK Courts have quite rightly said they will stick to the rule of law and not sugarcoat or vindicate countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh that violate the rule, so sticking with the rule of law is our courts established spirit here. That is long established precedent.
She is a citizen there. You can keep saying she isn't until you're blue in the face, but the law is the law and that is how the courts should and must operate.
The rule of law applies to our own laws. We can't apply our standards to other states who think differently - are we proposing to take Bangladesh to court for denying her legal citizenship having just denied her our legal citizenship?
Its probably a good job you are only a keyboard warrior and don't actually have any real world experience of anything. Like HY you can make all the blustering statements you like, doesn't make them actually apply. Like you read of the English rule of law on Bangladeshi law. They don't have to give a rat fuck what a court here thinks just as we don't of what their courts say about us.
Why does it matter what Bangladesh says? The question is whether it was lawful to revoke her UK citizenship under UK law. You seem to be the one arguing against reality on this question.
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Is this the source? Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
Contrary to legislation. Extra vires on the part of HMG, as they pertain to devolved areas.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
Timing matters - the Bangladeshi government didn’t disapply her rights until *after-* she was no longer a UK citizen
We are not a “backstop” to protect the worlds residents from bad actions by their own governments
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
And the UK Courts have quite rightly said they will stick to the rule of law and not sugarcoat or vindicate countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh that violate the rule, so sticking with the rule of law is our courts established spirit here. That is long established precedent.
She is a citizen there. You can keep saying she isn't until you're blue in the face, but the law is the law and that is how the courts should and must operate.
The rule of law applies to our own laws. We can't apply our standards to other states who think differently - are we proposing to take Bangladesh to court for denying her legal citizenship having just denied her our legal citizenship?
Its probably a good job you are only a keyboard warrior and don't actually have any real world experience of anything. Like HY you can make all the blustering statements you like, doesn't make them actually apply. Like you read of the English rule of law on Bangladeshi law. They don't have to give a rat fuck what a court here thinks just as we don't of what their courts say about us.
Why does it matter what Bangladesh says? The question is whether it was lawful to revoke her UK citizenship under UK law. You seem to be the one arguing against reality on this question.
Isn't it against our law to take someone's citizenship away from them if they have no other citizenship?
I'm going the opposite way. Drinking unpasteurised milk.
Enjoy your healthy and delicious cow mucus.
The economics of dairy production are so perverse and destructive - beyond the baseline suffering involved - that we make ourselves wilfully blind to it.
While 95% of people will decry these protester as smelly hippy morons (there is partial truth to this), the fact remains that dairy production is pretty terrible for the climate and even worse for the cows involved. If this provokes the conversation: good.
Looking forward to seeing all the edge cases of happy cows in green pastures presented as somehow typical.
But if all that is true, why is cheese so delicious ?
I'm sure crack is fucking awesome but that doesn't mean that regular consumption of it is a worthy idea.
Though we didn't evolve enzymes to metabolise crack tens of thousands of years ago.
Wouldn't be so sure. Much of the mammalian liver is there to metabolise the nasty chemicals plants secrete to discourage us and other mammals from eating them. Though the Mexican yam which secretes the contraceptive pill certainly wins the prize for economy, albeit only really working for much shorter generation animals. Giving your herbivores an instant high and doping them so they get eaten byt something else also works quite well. Hence datura, cocaine, etc.
Trueish - but we certainly evolved to possess a specific enzyme for (eg) alcohol, and I don't think there's anything similar for cocaine - as this article for example implies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293209/
Alcohol is an inevitable product of digestion, anyway, so liver alcohol dehydrogenase was there all along ready for when we eat overripe fruit and so on.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Or flattering opinion pieces from the worthy?
It isn't that long ago that no UK government - even an objectively right wing one like in the 1980s - would do the things done by this government. Or when a government as objectively authoritarian as Blair's proposes something objectionable parliament sets aside the huge government majority and says no.
But now? The more outrageous the better, and if we get media coverage of the people we disagree with being morally outraged by our latest moral outrage, all the better.
I have the impression that you've memory holed a lot of things that the Blair government actually did do.
Pre 1970 or so, I think that governments were generally a lot more authoritarian than they are now.
An interesting question is: Would the Hale court have agreed with @RochdalePioneers and essentially do a Roe vs Wade (The original US judgement) using slightly shaky legal reasoning to arrive at what the worthy see as a morally correct conclusion ?
I do wonder why none of the "activist lawyers" have taken this to court in Bangladesh...
Because Begum doesn’t want to live in Bangladesh. She thinks she can pressure some future UK government to give her citizenship back. Once she is Bangladeshi that won’t happen
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
If she truly does have the right to Bangladeshi citizenship, and that would be enforceable in Bangladeshi courts, then she is only stateless insofar that she refuses to exercise those rights. If you were to accept that she is stateless in those conditions, then the same would apply to any dual national who renounces their non-British citizenship, and it becomes effectively impossible to ever remove British citizenship from anyone.
Now, as it happens, I would rather the Home Secretary did not have the power to strip British citizenship from people, as I think it gives the state too much power over the individual. However, I do not think it was the intent of the UN agreement, that we have made into British law, to make it impossible to remove citizenship from anyone in all circumstances. It doesn't sound like anyone thought of what might happen if two countries wanted to remove citizenship from an individual at the same time - some method of arbitration for these cases would seem to be worth negotiating at the UN level to deal with this scenario.
I recognise that if I want to remove the power of the Home Secretary to remove British citizenship that is an argument I have to win among my fellow voters, so that we can elect MPs who will amend the law to that effect. It's not something I can properly bring about by trying to extend a different provision to obtain my desired aim.
Comments
She was responsible for bullying someone of their job and then Khan uses the Boris Johnson/Ian Blair precedent and that's outrageous.
For the first time in my life I want the Tory party to lose a general election.
But if they do then they shouldn't change it retrospectively, so won't be much use to Begum.
In other cheating, lying shyster news.
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Literally everyone knows he lied to parliament. Repeatedly. There are various excuses that can be proposed for why, and various pinheads to be danced on as to why sanctions shouldn't be applied, but "it must go to judicial review?" It isn't a legal matter...
Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF).
Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
But thinking about it, we both seem to be on the same political page eagles - we should be voting Conservatives because conservatism is all about decent and respectful leadership setting example, but this lot have had no decency and respect about them for years now, so our vote is with libdems? They seem to have forgotten there us no “I” in team or lead by examples!
When I’m President Queen of Yorkshire, I’m thinking of giving you some sort of role.
Huzzah! I mean - Ebagum!
Lord Pannick of course knows what he is doing; he has been hired to fire a shot across the bows and has done so.
But, as with Trump only on a smaller scale, parliament's power over government and its own members could lead to an interesting constitutional showdown in parliament and the courts. In legal terms this particular one would make the prorogation case look quite minor.
Boris shares this trait with Trump. They are, knowingly or not, moral disciples of David Hume, a great man whose moral philosophy is wrong in every particular, whose comment
"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"
says it all about the narcissistic ego.
You admit that there is a disagreement between what the Bangladeshi government said about whether she was a citizen and what Bangladeshi law said about it.
And you've taken the side of the politicians over the law.
His/her tag team takedowns with @Casino_Royale of centrist/liberal/socialist scum like myself was something to behold.
Although if we end up with DeSantis I guess joy could be muted.
Bryant counterblast to Pannick
'Brexit could give Scotland new immigration powers - Gove
Scotland will get more powers if Britain votes for Brexit, including the ability for Holyrood to control immigration, Michael Gove said today.
The justice secretary and co-chairman of Vote Leave made an attempt to attract the support of advocates of Scottish independence and further devolution to vote for Brexit.'
https://tinyurl.com/2p96mebt
'Michael Gove: Brexit offers the chance to take back control of our own borders
And on June 23, we can also take the opportunity to strengthen the Scottish Parliament. Donald Dewar, the founder of Holyrood, future-proofed devolution. He constructed the Scotland Act deliberately to make sure that when new powers emerged in the future, powers that neither he nor anyone else could foresee at the time, they would automatically become the domain of Holyrood rather than Westminster. The device he used was simple: a list of reserved powers in the Scotland Act – anything that fell outside that list would be devolved...
...The same will happen with those powers currently wielded over Scotland by the European Commission in Brussels. Inheriting fishing policy, in particular, gives Scottish Ministers at Holyrood a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reinvigorate an industry that has been decimated by the European Common Fisheries Policy.'
https://tinyurl.com/2p8eakns
Or maybe my sense of PB time is malfunctioning.
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We have washed our hands of a citizen. Its hypocritical to complain about another state doing the same. Especially when her British citizenship was established and practical and her supposedly Bangladeshi citizenship only theoretical. "But the law says so" - and how many times do British people have to go to court to have "but the law says so" actually applied?
If she committed crimes - allegedly - then that is up to the Syrian government to try her and we all follow on from there. If the alleged crimes were allegedly committed in Iraq, then the trial is up to them.
I hold no brief for alleged criminals, and moreover think that the idea of dual nationality ought to be abolished. Does a person belong with us, or to us, or not?
There is some way of looking up date of someone’s last post? Because I didn’t post first post till after my birthday, so it must have been October - to help you reset your PB time.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
I know the use of de jure and not de facto with regards to this specific law. Thats the letter of the law. But the spirit of the law is to prevent us making people stateless. Which we have de facto.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Without going into the merits of the Begum case, I am uncomfortable that the decision to revoke her citizenship was made by a politician on the basis of populist public opinion.
But her parents were born there and lived in Bangladesh until adulthood so presumable were more than “citizens by descent only” which implies a more limited relationship
But now? The more outrageous the better, and if we get media coverage of the people we disagree with being morally outraged by our latest moral outrage, all the better.
I am not saying this in support of one side or the other in the Begum case, rather making a point that is important to me as someone who wants our laws to be limited but effective. As soon as you start talking about the 'spirit' of the law you open the door to the authorities acting beyond their legally defined remit.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
RUSI reckon Truss commitment to spend 3% of national income on defence by 2030 would cost an extra £157bn. This would be the biggest increase since the 1950s and there has been little attempt to prepare the public for the "sacrifices" involved in meeting it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62765529
More immediately though, both party and voters are expecting tax cuts and credit crisis handouts. And both the voters, media and markets are looking for these policies to be properly and sanely funded to avoid debt, austerity and spending cuts - there will be immediate market and polling trouble if how it’s paid for doesn’t add up.
To go back to have RUSI phrased it - so far there has been “little attempt to prepare the public for the sacrifices" to come. We have to expect a very different tone from Truss government next week?
In other news it seems if a modern day Guy Fawkes chooses now to strike he'll not only save the country many billions in that a new building could be built, but he'll also happily eradiate three idiots that have super-glued themselves to a fire risk.
Would the Hale court have agreed with @RochdalePioneers and essentially do a Roe vs Wade (The original US judgement) using slightly shaky legal reasoning to arrive at what the worthy see as a morally correct conclusion ?
1) Let her in
2) Arrest her and try her for War Crimes. She stated in a TV interview that she committed them....
(I've converted it into a joke, which I often tell to grocery workers here. Almost all of them love it.)
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
Does Truss have the emotional intelligence to be able to relate to the public at large?
Whilst she may be analytical and hard working, will she understand the actual stresses and strains of her policies on a typical voter?
Is Truss a more in theory rather than in practice politician?
Boris was better at the latter than the former.
You're defending the indefensible as stubbornly as HYUFD ever does.
so sticking with the rule of law is our courts established spirit here. That is long established precedent.
She is a citizen there. You can keep saying she isn't until you're blue in the face, but the law is the law and that is how the courts should and must operate.
Its an "oh yes she is, oh no she isn't" argument.
She used to be a full British citizen, but now is stateless.
That's one hell of a start.
Its probably a good job you are only a keyboard warrior and don't actually have any real world experience of anything. Like HY you can make all the blustering statements you like, doesn't make them actually apply. Like you read of the English rule of law on Bangladeshi law. They don't have to give a rat fuck what a court here thinks just as we don't of what their courts say about us.
But here it's the other way. Javid shafting Begun reminds me of Ed Balls and Sharon Shoesmith.
Lab or Con, doesn't matter, the government shouldn't go after individuals to please the red tops.
If the law says she's Bangladeshi and Bangladesh refuse to honour her rights then maybe somewhere might be willing to give her asylum. There's a process for that too, but she's not a UK citizen as the law was followed here.
De-nazifying the following generations - something was done there.
Prevent and other programs have done something in this country. But that still leaves the requirement for the occasional Narwal horn.
Q. How many social workers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. Only one but the lightbulb has really, really got to want to change!
And I think it's doubtful in the camps really want to change. In other words to them jihad is part of being a Muslim. Sadly!
We are not a “backstop” to protect the worlds residents from bad actions by their own governments
Cocaine, not so much, perhaps, though!
Now, as it happens, I would rather the Home Secretary did not have the power to strip British citizenship from people, as I think it gives the state too much power over the individual. However, I do not think it was the intent of the UN agreement, that we have made into British law, to make it impossible to remove citizenship from anyone in all circumstances. It doesn't sound like anyone thought of what might happen if two countries wanted to remove citizenship from an individual at the same time - some method of arbitration for these cases would seem to be worth negotiating at the UN level to deal with this scenario.
I recognise that if I want to remove the power of the Home Secretary to remove British citizenship that is an argument I have to win among my fellow voters, so that we can elect MPs who will amend the law to that effect. It's not something I can properly bring about by trying to extend a different provision to obtain my desired aim.