Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This is the “spin”. Now for some questions. – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    By all accounts Truss is intelligent (A levels in Maths and Further Maths) but is it the wrong type of intelligence for being prime minister?

    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.

    HOw anyone who has actual advanced qualifications in Maths could be proud of coming up with the new GCSE in Maths is beyond me. I would say she's just not sensible rather than anything else. Or perhaps just not very aware of what she's doing.

    You do get a lot of very intelligent people who are like that. First time I ever met my supervisor, he literally got lost on the way from the lecture theatre to his office, which was about 200 yards away.
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    So in reality she is a Bangladeshi citizen with all the rights that come with it such as residence and a passport?

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    Sure. But she is/was British. We didn't act as a back stop to anyone.
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    The kicker is if Begum somehow does manage to rock up here then she might be able to get asylum since she'll be stateless :!
    Her best bet is probably coming in on a dinghy...
  • Foxy said:

    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.
    That’s exactly the question SAIC answered differently to you.
  • Pulpstar said:

    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
    Forget for a moment whether she wants it or not. Do any of us know the robustness of the Bangladeshi legal system in holding their governments to account?
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    So in reality she is a Bangladeshi citizen with all the rights that come with it such as residence and a passport?

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    Sure. But she is/was British. We didn't act as a back stop to anyone.
    In reality she was at the time the decision was made, yes, absolutely.

    If a government denies people their fundamental rights that doesn't strip them of their nationality under the law. If it did then there'd be no Russian or Chinese nationals, which is clearly not the case.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    edited September 2022

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I stand to be corrected, but didn't the Bangladeshis explain what their law was rather than what the British government thought it was?
  • Carnyx said:

    Off topic and one for @StuartDickson , @Carnyx , @Theuniondivvie

    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 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.
    Is that ultra vires in the way the Scottish government having a binding referendum without Westminster approval is ultra vires? Or a different kind of ultra vires?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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...
    No, it's the Bangaldeshi government which has made her stateless by going against Bangladeshi law. That's not our fault, no matter how much you hate the evil Tories.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028
    Pulpstar said:

    The kicker is if Begum somehow does manage to rock up here then she might be able to get asylum since she'll be stateless :!
    Her best bet is probably coming in on a dinghy...

    What would happen if she came in on a dinghy? By UK law She is a security risk to the whole country being here, government and military would have to act immediately in flying her to Bangladesh?

    Maybe her publicist could get her on I’m A Celebrity
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    It was and it is. Which is why the SIAC examined the laws of Bangladesh as they applied to Begum.

    I have a great great grandparent who is Belgium, unfortunately it doesn't personally realise me freedom of movement within the EU. Thems the breaks I guess.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    ...
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
    Yep, Shoesmith was personally scapegoated by the Labour Government as a smokescreen for said Labour Government's failed social policy, the Tory press conveniently stuck the boot in too.

    How did destroying Sharon Shoesmith's career and life prevent Arthur Labinjo Hughes? It didn't, but it made the red tops and their readership feel better at the time, and we love a wicked female scapegoat too. Likewise Begum.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853

    Anyone that genuinely believes Boris Johnson did not intentionally lie to parliament is as thick as a plank or as dishonest as he is.

    Or paid in gold bars...
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    So in reality she is a Bangladeshi citizen with all the rights that come with it such as residence and a passport?

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    Sure. But she is/was British. We didn't act as a back stop to anyone.
    You are saying we shouldn’t have withdrawn her citizenship because the Bangladeshi government said they intended to ignore the law. Why should we facilitate that vs the courts interpreting the law as written?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
    No the ruling of the SIAC was that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, not that she was eligible for citizenship.
  • Carnyx said:

    Off topic and one for @StuartDickson , @Carnyx , @Theuniondivvie

    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 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.
    Is that ultra vires in the way the Scottish government having a binding referendum without Westminster approval is ultra vires? Or a different kind of ultra vires?
    I would have picked "Scottish government trying to conduct foreign policy," personally, what with another £600k embassy going in only last month.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The kicker is if Begum somehow does manage to rock up here then she might be able to get asylum since she'll be stateless :!
    Her best bet is probably coming in on a dinghy...

    Citizenship of Rwanda might be available…
  • Pulpstar said:

    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
    Forget for a moment whether she wants it or not. Do any of us know the robustness of the Bangladeshi legal system in holding their governments to account?
    I would assume that it is less than optimally robust.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    edited September 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
    No the ruling of the SIAC was that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, not that she was eligible for citizenship.
    That ruling appears counter factual to the evidence available.
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
  • Good afternoon

    G7 finance ministers agree to a temporary price cap on Russian oil exports

    I understand Putin has said if they do this he will stop all exports to Europe

    We live in a crazy world
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    She isn't the world's resident though, some kind of rootless global citizen with a fleeting connection to Britain. She is a Londoner, born in the UK, who has never even been to Bangladesh, the country we are trying to offload her on.
    Whether what the British government has done to her is legal is a question I can't answer, and to be honest I'm not interested in it. I am not a lawyer. The point is that the law is both wrong and counterproductive. It's wrong because British citizens shouldn't have their fundamental rights stripped from them at the whim of a politician. It's wrong because in effect, even if not in intent, it falls unduly on people of colour, and so falls foul of any idea of equal treatment. It's wrong because people who have committed crimes should be tried in a court of law not thrown into a legal limbo. And it's counterproductive because it sends a powerful message to millions of British citizens, mostly people of colour, that they are second class citizens whose Britishness is considered to be conditional - and so undermines any effort to forge a British identity.
    The law is populist nonsense and the people who created it - Labour I believe, although the Tories have used it far more aggressively - should be ashamed of themselves.
    It's quite possible that she's an utterly vile human being, but she is as British as I am.
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    So in reality she is a Bangladeshi citizen with all the rights that come with it such as residence and a passport?

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    Sure. But she is/was British. We didn't act as a back stop to anyone.
    I think most countries have conditions applied to dual citizenship. If I apply for Irish citizenship and am successful I will have joint citizenship, but I think that if I was then deemed a threat to the Irish Republic I most likely would have to revert to being just British. I havent looked into the legal complexities of it, but I wonder whether dual citizenship is perhaps a misnomer. It is really secondary citizenship in practice.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
    Again, she doesn't have to apparently

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
    Surely you can see the logic in the fact that we shouldn't be offloading a problem our country created to a different country that had nothing to do with her upbringing?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    edited September 2022
    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t wait until after an election loss.
  • Apparently the House of Commons did set up a Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change that reported in 2020 - but I guess I didn't notice because of Covid, the US Presidential election, and other news.

    https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/
  • Pulpstar said:

    The kicker is if Begum somehow does manage to rock up here then she might be able to get asylum since she'll be stateless :!
    Her best bet is probably coming in on a dinghy...

    lol can you imagine it!

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I stand to be corrected, but didn't the Bangladeshis explain what their law was rather than what the British government thought it was?
    They stated that saying "she's born to Bangladeshi parents so is Bangladeshi" is theoretical until her parental line and their own claim to citizenship had been verified. They have no clue who Begum is.

    And that's the point. Mrs RP is eligible for Spanish citizenship. She is "Spanish by birth right" in Spanish law and has been registered as such in Spain. So whilst on paper that makes her eligible for citizenship, if Truss revoked her British citizenship tomorrow she doesn't automatically become Spanish, even though unlike Begum she is know to the Spanish government.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853

    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t be wait until after an election loss.

    Could Truss nix the select committee ?

    It'd be highly inadvisable I think. But can she as PM do that ?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
    No the ruling of the SIAC was that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, not that she was eligible for citizenship.
    That ruling appears counter factual to the evidence available.
    The evidence available seems to be the constitution, laws and statutes that applies here which are gone into, in detail, by the SIAC. The SIAC's judgment and the evidence used to make it is a matter of public record that was quoted earlier in the thread.

    What evidence would you say contradicts the SIAC's judgment?
  • It should not be possible for the government to strip anyone of their citizenship, full stop.

    Disgustingly illiberal measure.

    I actually agree with you here. I was just arguing specifically about whether or not she had Bangladeshi citizenship since is sadly matters under the current laws.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t be wait until after an election loss.

    Could Truss nix the select committee ?

    It'd be highly inadvisable I think. But can she as PM do that ?
    I don’t believe so, not as PM.
    However as leader of a majority of parliamentarians she might be able to.

    But she’d be mad to.
    She needs to have Boris stifled.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t be wait until after an election loss.

    Could Truss nix the select committee ?

    It'd be highly inadvisable I think. But can she as PM do that ?
    As I predicted on here last week, the next GE will be Starmer vs Johnson.
  • eek said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
    Surely you can see the logic in the fact that we shouldn't be offloading a problem our country created to a different country that had nothing to do with her upbringing?
    That's a moral argument rather than a legal one.

    I agree that I do not like the law, as passed by Parliament, that grants the Home Secretary the power to strip someone of British citizenship. But the proper place to change that law is in Parliament, and not in the courts.
  • It should not be possible for the government to strip anyone of their citizenship, full stop.

    Disgustingly illiberal measure.

    Citizenship is an alien concept anyway. We should be subjects of the crown. ;)
  • eek said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
    Surely you can see the logic in the fact that we shouldn't be offloading a problem our country created to a different country that had nothing to do with her upbringing?
    Oh again I agree. We should not be able to strip citizenship and responsibility of someone born here. But as I say that is a different matter to the question being asked about her Bangladeshi citizenship

    It seems to me that the British Government were legally absolutely right. But for me that means the law should be changed. I know other will disagree with me on that.

  • Incidentally regardless of the rights or wrongs of the case, today's discussion of the Begum case has been even more interesting and informative than yesterdays. Well done to the two people who found and linked to respectively the Court of Appeals ruling and the SIAC's.

    Having an educated discussion based upon the facts of the case and the Judgment as to why they were reached has been a really interesting discussion, about what the law actually is, rather than what we think the law should be.
  • ydoethur said:

    By all accounts Truss is intelligent (A levels in Maths and Further Maths) but is it the wrong type of intelligence for being prime minister?

    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.

    HOw anyone who has actual advanced qualifications in Maths could be proud of coming up with the new GCSE in Maths is beyond me. I would say she's just not sensible rather than anything else. Or perhaps just not very aware of what she's doing.

    You do get a lot of very intelligent people who are like that. First time I ever met my supervisor, he literally got lost on the way from the lecture theatre to his office, which was about 200 yards away.
    Maths is a funny subject to teach, though. Most subjects, you can make the lesson easier or harder by tweaking the difficulty of the questions. In maths, the only way that's really available is to start new topics. It's like having a history curriculum where the top set get to study both World Wars and the rest of the classes only do one or the other, but it's pretty much the only thing anyone has come up with that works.

    So if you are really really good at maths, there is a temptation to think that existing qualifications are trivially easy, boring and so on and that the right and obvious fix is to add a load of extra content.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Truss pushed for the sort of maths curriculum she wished she had done, and just didn't consider that there are many more people unlike her than like her.

    ("Trivially easy" is the sort of thing they say as well. On the rare occaisions that I got my then boss to describe something I had done as "highly non-trivial", I knew things were going well.)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t be wait until after an election loss.

    Could Truss nix the select committee ?

    It'd be highly inadvisable I think. But can she as PM do that ?
    She could, just as Johnson did for Paterson. Whether she would get away with it, we'd have to see, but the precedent is that Paterson was the beginning of the end for Johnson, because many Conservative MPs disliked being coerced into voting to save Paterson.
  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    She isn't the world's resident though, some kind of rootless global citizen with a fleeting connection to Britain. She is a Londoner, born in the UK, who has never even been to Bangladesh, the country we are trying to offload her on.
    Whether what the British government has done to her is legal is a question I can't answer, and to be honest I'm not interested in it. I am not a lawyer. The point is that the law is both wrong and counterproductive. It's wrong because British citizens shouldn't have their fundamental rights stripped from them at the whim of a politician. It's wrong because in effect, even if not in intent, it falls unduly on people of colour, and so falls foul of any idea of equal treatment. It's wrong because people who have committed crimes should be tried in a court of law not thrown into a legal limbo. And it's counterproductive because it sends a powerful message to millions of British citizens, mostly people of colour, that they are second class citizens whose Britishness is considered to be conditional - and so undermines any effort to forge a British identity.
    The law is populist nonsense and the people who created it - Labour I believe, although the Tories have used it far more aggressively - should be ashamed of themselves.
    It's quite possible that she's an utterly vile human being, but she is as British as I am.
    That’s a different point though - get a majority in parliament who agree with you and change the law

  • NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Scottish Tories below 10%:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 21%
    SCon 9%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 3%
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Pulpstar said:

    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t be wait until after an election loss.

    Could Truss nix the select committee ?

    It'd be highly inadvisable I think. But can she as PM do that ?
    She w2ould have to whip a vote rescinding the referral of April 21. Not gonna happen.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,816
    ydoethur said:

    By all accounts Truss is intelligent (A levels in Maths and Further Maths) but is it the wrong type of intelligence for being prime minister?

    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.

    HOw anyone who has actual advanced qualifications in Maths could be proud of coming up with the new GCSE in Maths is beyond me. I would say she's just not sensible rather than anything else. Or perhaps just not very aware of what she's doing.

    You do get a lot of very intelligent people who are like that. First time I ever met my supervisor, he literally got lost on the way from the lecture theatre to his office, which was about 200 yards away.
    Sounds like he might have Dyspraxia
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,743
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    It is a way of doing democracy - there is no one thing that democracy is. It suffers from defects. The worst to my mind is that the CA concept fails properly to represent the a-political, the indifferent, the people who fail to put themselves forward, the inarticulate; many of them vote for someone to do this for them, called an MP. Rather as most defendants need a barrister to put their case for them.

    But CA's overrepresent the narcissist, the bully, the manipulator, the natural leader, the single issue fanatic.

    Not, as they say, in my name please.

  • Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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
    She isn't the world's resident though, some kind of rootless global citizen with a fleeting connection to Britain. She is a Londoner, born in the UK, who has never even been to Bangladesh, the country we are trying to offload her on.
    Whether what the British government has done to her is legal is a question I can't answer, and to be honest I'm not interested in it. I am not a lawyer. The point is that the law is both wrong and counterproductive. It's wrong because British citizens shouldn't have their fundamental rights stripped from them at the whim of a politician. It's wrong because in effect, even if not in intent, it falls unduly on people of colour, and so falls foul of any idea of equal treatment. It's wrong because people who have committed crimes should be tried in a court of law not thrown into a legal limbo. And it's counterproductive because it sends a powerful message to millions of British citizens, mostly people of colour, that they are second class citizens whose Britishness is considered to be conditional - and so undermines any effort to forge a British identity.
    The law is populist nonsense and the people who created it - Labour I believe, although the Tories have used it far more aggressively - should be ashamed of themselves.
    It's quite possible that she's an utterly vile human being, but she is as British as I am.
    That’s a different point though - get a majority in parliament who agree with you and change the law

    It's the point I'm making. As I said, I don't know if the law has been applied correctly as I am not a lawyer. The point is that the law is just plain wrong. As such I welcome any and all efforts, legal, political or whatever, to cease its use.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    ...

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
    Yep, Shoesmith was personally scapegoated by the Labour Government as a smokescreen for said Labour Government's failed social policy, the Tory press conveniently stuck the boot in too.

    How did destroying Sharon Shoesmith's career and life prevent Arthur Labinjo Hughes? It didn't, but it made the red tops and their readership feel better at the time, and we love a wicked female scapegoat too. Likewise Begum.
    Yes. And this 'was it legal?' debate re Begum is something of a distraction imo.

    It was - as we speak - legal to strip her of her citizenship. It was legal because the HS did it and the courts said there weren't the grounds to tell him he couldn't.

    But so what? That's just the basic definition of legal. Goes nowhere here as an argument. It certainly doesn't mean it was right. Is OJ innocent because he was acquitted? Nope.

    To people fetishizing 'legal' on this I would simply ask - would it not have been even MORE legal to have not stripped her of her citizenship?

    I mean which is better? Legal or extremely legal?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
    Fair enough; I stand corrected!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    edited September 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
    No the ruling of the SIAC was that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, not that she was eligible for citizenship.
    That ruling appears counter factual to the evidence available.
    The evidence available seems to be the constitution, laws and statutes that applies here which are gone into, in detail, by the SIAC. The SIAC's judgment and the evidence used to make it is a matter of public record that was quoted earlier in the thread.

    What evidence would you say contradicts the SIAC's judgment?
    The SIAC interpreted Bangladesh law contrary to how Bangladesh interpreted Bangladesh law. The mere fact that Bangladesh denies she is Bangladeshi, and based on her personal history to the moment, at aged 15- a minor- she left for Syria, I agree with Bangladesh.

    We have a moral obligation for the woman (and we did for her child). Should we decide to prosecute her, convict her and throw her into Holloway Prison for the rest of her days, that is fine by me, so long as that follows due process. My problem is that her citizenship was revoked on a political whim and the SIAC balanced a 50/50 decision in favour of a political whim. Perhaps they bowed to the court of public opinion at the time too.
  • Apparently the House of Commons did set up a Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change that reported in 2020 - but I guess I didn't notice because of Covid, the US Presidential election, and other news.

    https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/

    I might not agree with everything in the Citizens' Assembly report, but there's a lot of good stuff in there, and given that Extinction Rebellion asked for it they would achieve more if they were to pressurise the government into implementing it. For example, there was very strong support from the Assembly for Onshore Wind and Solar power, and this is where a pressure group could make a difference to counteract the pressure from a relatively small number of ideological Tory backbenchers.

    I've only had a skim through a couple of sections, but it looks like a good piece of work with serious thought given to compromises, and not falling completely victim to wishful thinking. I'd advise other PBers to take a look.

    A Citizens' Assembly on the NHS and Social Care might be a rather good idea.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    It should not be possible for the government to strip anyone of their citizenship, full stop.

    Disgustingly illiberal measure.

    Citizenship is an alien concept anyway. We should be subjects of the crown. ;)
    So even if Shamima is a terrorist suspect, so long as she remained loyal to the Monarch, her British citizenship should have remained safe. I like it!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    dixiedean said:
    Mount is bright and writes well, I am sure he would help appoint good peers
  • Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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?
    If they have no other citizenship at the time, yes. She did, that's the law.

    That Bangladesh subsequently changed it on their side was them rendering her stateless, not us.
    I thought she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, rather than actually a Bangladeshi citizen.

    Had she ever informed the government of Bangladeshi that she was a citizen? Or applied for a passport?

    Personally, I think we missed a trick by not recognizing ISIS as a country. She could then have become an ISIS citizen, and been off our hands that way.
    No the ruling of the SIAC was that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, not that she was eligible for citizenship.
    That ruling appears counter factual to the evidence available.
    The evidence available seems to be the constitution, laws and statutes that applies here which are gone into, in detail, by the SIAC. The SIAC's judgment and the evidence used to make it is a matter of public record that was quoted earlier in the thread.

    What evidence would you say contradicts the SIAC's judgment?
    The SIAC interpreted Bangladesh law contrary to how Bangladesh interpreted Bangladesh law. The mere fact that Bangladesh denies she is Bangladeshi, and based on her personal history to the moment, at aged 15- a minor- she left for Syria, I agree with Bangladesh.

    We have a moral obligation for the woman (and we did for her child). Should we decide to prosecute her, convict her and throw her into Holloway Prison for the rest of her days, that is fine by me, so long as that follows due process. My problem is that her citizenship was revoked on a political whim and the SIAC balanced a 50/50 decision in favour of a political whim. Perhaps they bowed to the court of public opinion at the time too.
    To be exact, the SIAC interpreted Bangladesh law contrary to how Bangladesh *Government* interpreted Bangladesh law.

    They seem to have taken the view that the Bangladeshi government acted unlawfully, and outside their prerogative. Bit like someone proroging parliament unlawfully....

    Personally, I think she should be in the country and doing 20 years. I think that would upset nearly everyone.
  • algarkirk said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    It is a way of doing democracy - there is no one thing that democracy is. It suffers from defects. The worst to my mind is that the CA concept fails properly to represent the a-political, the indifferent, the people who fail to put themselves forward, the inarticulate; many of them vote for someone to do this for them, called an MP. Rather as most defendants need a barrister to put their case for them.

    But CA's overrepresent the narcissist, the bully, the manipulator, the natural leader, the single issue fanatic.

    Not, as they say, in my name please.

    They were used successfully in Ireland to look at abortion, among other issues.

    They are not a substitute for Westminster, but could (should) be a useful addition.

    For example, a citizen’s assembly could have been used to identify a preferred PR option in advance of the 2011 referendum.

    A citizen’s assembly could also have been used to identify negotiating priorities for Brexit.

    A rather limited one in 2017 looked at Brexit outcomes and decided they preferred to stay in the single market, and “to maintain free movement of labour, but to use the controls that are available within the terms of the Single Market and make other changes that would reduce immigration and mitigate its costs”.
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:
    Mount is bright and writes well, I am sure he would help appoint good peers
    Mount is a Boris stooge.
    Like you, just with better breeding and more money.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:
    Mount is bright and writes well, I am sure he would help appoint good peers
    What is your definition of a 'good peer'?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175

    Johnson appears to be using public funds to promote his own case against the parliamentary committee.

    He is clearly on manoeuvres, and I would not be surprised if Johnson or Johnson outriders are already briefing against Truss.

    Truss can either kill, or be killed.
    He certainly won’t wait until after an election loss.

    Someone said it the other day.

    She should remove the whip, which not only castrates him as a threat now but also stops him standing in the future
  • Apparently the House of Commons did set up a Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change that reported in 2020 - but I guess I didn't notice because of Covid, the US Presidential election, and other news.

    https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/

    I might not agree with everything in the Citizens' Assembly report, but there's a lot of good stuff in there, and given that Extinction Rebellion asked for it they would achieve more if they were to pressurise the government into implementing it. For example, there was very strong support from the Assembly for Onshore Wind and Solar power, and this is where a pressure group could make a difference to counteract the pressure from a relatively small number of ideological Tory backbenchers.

    I've only had a skim through a couple of sections, but it looks like a good piece of work with serious thought given to compromises, and not falling completely victim to wishful thinking. I'd advise other PBers to take a look.

    A Citizens' Assembly on the NHS and Social Care might be a rather good idea.
    I read the other day in one of the papers that the Dutch version of NHS was in similar mess many years back and they had some kind of royal commission process about its funding and opted for a more mixed approach (i.e. some element of health insurance required as well as tax funded stuff). It took a long time for this process to work its way through the system but they have now implemented it iirc.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    Boris Johnson has appointed his acting chief of staff, Baroness Simone Finn, as the Conservative member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life https://www.gov.uk/government/news/political-members-appointed-to-the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    algarkirk said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    It is a way of doing democracy - there is no one thing that democracy is. It suffers from defects. The worst to my mind is that the CA concept fails properly to represent the a-political, the indifferent, the people who fail to put themselves forward, the inarticulate; many of them vote for someone to do this for them, called an MP. Rather as most defendants need a barrister to put their case for them.

    But CA's overrepresent the narcissist, the bully, the manipulator, the natural leader, the single issue fanatic.

    Not, as they say, in my name please.

    They were used successfully in Ireland to look at abortion, among other issues.

    They are not a substitute for Westminster, but could (should) be a useful addition.

    For example, a citizen’s assembly could have been used to identify a preferred PR option in advance of the 2011 referendum.

    A citizen’s assembly could also have been used to identify negotiating priorities for Brexit.

    A rather limited one in 2017 looked at Brexit outcomes and decided they preferred to stay in the single market, and “to maintain free movement of labour, but to use the controls that are available within the terms of the Single Market and make other changes that would reduce immigration and mitigate its costs”.
    Except the failure of Brown and Blair to use those controls back in 2005 is the reason why a majority voted for Brexit in the first place
  • NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Scottish Tories below 10%:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 21%
    SCon 9%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 3%
    Are these figures definitely correct. 11% seems a lot of "other"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Could it have been a 4 year course?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Three years in the sixth form?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    edited September 2022
    Citizens assemblies really should become part of the way the UK does democracy.

    They are effectively souped up juries, and the go-to scholar is James Fishkin (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford).

    Brexit will only stick, in my view, if it is understood as a democratic renewal, and citizens assemblies - which foster debate, participation, and consensus, are surely part of the prescription.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
  • eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    It is a way of doing democracy - there is no one thing that democracy is. It suffers from defects. The worst to my mind is that the CA concept fails properly to represent the a-political, the indifferent, the people who fail to put themselves forward, the inarticulate; many of them vote for someone to do this for them, called an MP. Rather as most defendants need a barrister to put their case for them.

    But CA's overrepresent the narcissist, the bully, the manipulator, the natural leader, the single issue fanatic.

    Not, as they say, in my name please.

    They were used successfully in Ireland to look at abortion, among other issues.

    They are not a substitute for Westminster, but could (should) be a useful addition.

    For example, a citizen’s assembly could have been used to identify a preferred PR option in advance of the 2011 referendum.

    A citizen’s assembly could also have been used to identify negotiating priorities for Brexit.

    A rather limited one in 2017 looked at Brexit outcomes and decided they preferred to stay in the single market, and “to maintain free movement of labour, but to use the controls that are available within the terms of the Single Market and make other changes that would reduce immigration and mitigate its costs”.
    Except the failure of Brown and Blair to use those controls back in 2005 is the reason why a majority voted for Brexit in the first place
    That’s presumably on Brown and Blair.
    They are no longer in power, in case you haven’t noticed.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Dunno. But noticed this.

    "He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."

    I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
    Fair enough; I stand corrected!
    But are you corrected OKC?

    I am often minded to agree with @Richard_Tyndall , but in this instance I am not convinced, even by the Bangladeshi legal expert's judgement he quotes. There is much pinhead dancing to reach the conclusion the expert reaches.

    I step back a couple of paces and contest that Javid's decision was executed entirely for party political advantage at the time.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson has appointed his acting chief of staff, Baroness Simone Finn, as the Conservative member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life https://www.gov.uk/government/news/political-members-appointed-to-the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life

    For a bloke making no major decisions, he's sure stuffing vacancies with his cronies today.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Since the gap was there for about 300 years, it appears you surprise quite easily.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Scottish Tories below 10%:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 21%
    SCon 9%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 3%
    Are these figures definitely correct. 11% seems a lot of "other"
    Add them up again.

  • HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
    And?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    Driver said:

    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.
    image
    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.
    I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:

    https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

    It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.

    On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
    Fair enough; I stand corrected!
    But are you corrected OKC?

    I am often minded to agree with @Richard_Tyndall , but in this instance I am not convinced, even by the Bangladeshi legal expert's judgement he quotes. There is much pinhead dancing to reach the conclusion the expert reaches.

    I step back a couple of paces and contest that Javid's decision was executed entirely for party political advantage at the time.
    That that the decision was executed entirely for party political advantage is unquestionable. Sadly it appears there was legal basis for it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    The Pannick objection to the Johnson investigation sounds a little desperate.

    It's funny how the same people who thought Pannick was brilliant when he was arguing against the government in the Miller case now think he's useless.
    He's a good lawyer who can argue a very bad case well, just as he can do so for a good one.

    Funny that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Pulpstar said:

    Here's the latest US jobs report: "The U.S. labor market added 315,000 jobs in August, hitting a 20-month streak in strong job growth that’s powering an economy through ominously high inflation.

    The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month.
    . . .
    Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period."
    source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/

    There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.

    Inflation at 13.9% in the USA then, given it was 5.4% last July. Not great.
    Eh ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Scottish Tories below 10%:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 21%
    SCon 9%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 3%
    Are these figures definitely correct. 11% seems a lot of "other"
    It looks an outlier, the last Yougov Scottish figures had SNP 46%, SLab 23% and SCon 17%

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r5rjf9we9n/TheTimes_VI_CostOfLiving_220824_W.pdf

    However again the SNP have to hope the Tories win most seats in England but SNP + Lab has more than the Tories in a hung parliament to have any hope of indyref2
  • Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Here's the latest US jobs report: "The U.S. labor market added 315,000 jobs in August, hitting a 20-month streak in strong job growth that’s powering an economy through ominously high inflation.

    The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month.
    . . .
    Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period."
    source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/

    There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.

    Inflation at 13.9% in the USA then, given it was 5.4% last July. Not great.
    Eh ?
    Inflation is NOT at 13.9% here.

    I believe the UK is the only country in the G7 with double digit inflation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
    And?
    Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Citizens assemblies really should become part of the way the UK does democracy.

    They are effectively souped up juries, and the go-to scholar is James Fishkin (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford).

    Brexit will only stick, in my view, if it seem as a democratic renewal, and citizens assemblies - which foster debate, participation, and consensus, are surely part of the prescription.

    Citizens Assemblies do seem able to get people together to debate the evidence and consult in a nonpolitical way, when constituted by a jury type selection system, and to come up with reasonable proposals. In some ways a more democratic form of Royal Commission.

    There are all sorts of different forms of democracy, and for some issues they may be the way forward. It is about tailoring the tool to the job.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
  • dixiedean said:

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Dunno. But noticed this.

    "He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."

    I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
    It would appear that Starmer left school in 1981, but that he was at Leeds from 1982-85 (according to Lord Ashcroft). So that would suggest that he did have a gap year...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
    And?
    Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
    No, they can be appointed by it. They are a consultative rather than legislative body.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    eek said:

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Could it have been a 4 year course?
    Stacking shelves for a year at Tesco to pay his way through Uni?
  • dixiedean said:

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Dunno. But noticed this.

    "He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."

    I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
    It would appear that Starmer left school in 1981, but that he was at Leeds from 1982-85 (according to Lord Ashcroft). So that would suggest that he did have a gap year...
    According to Buzzfeed:

    His father, Rod, who was well known in the local community, worked in a factory every day from 8am to 5pm before coming home for his tea and going out to work again. His engineering skills allowed him to create a modified wheelchair for his wife later in life so they could still enjoy walks in the Lake District. After he left school, Starmer took a gap year and spent several months working in the factory with him.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/keir-starmer-profile
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.

    They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.

    It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
    Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
    We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
    And?
    Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
    In what way?
    And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
  • .
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
  • Dynamo said:

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Scottish Tories below 10%:

    SNP 56%
    SLab 21%
    SCon 9%
    Grn 6%
    SLD 5%
    Ref 3%
    Are these figures definitely correct. 11% seems a lot of "other"
    Add them up again.

    I was referring to the UK-wide figures posted by CHB
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    “Do we definitely want to go with *brighter* future?”

    “Why not?”

    “Well there’s that thing about 70 per cent of pubs and shops shutting down because they can’t afford to switch the lights on that you’re completely ignoring?”

    “Bugger it, I’ve won anyway. Leave it as is.”

    “Ok.”

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1565718554804109312
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    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.

    Absolutely they should not.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
    The government doesn't do things to please the red tops. It does things to please the sort of voters who the red tops are trying to sell newspapers to.
    Who happen to be in the right, some of the time.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    Starmer is 60 today.

    This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).

    Yet I am 58.

    One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.

    So - there is a year missing.

    Did Starmer have a gap year?

    I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.

    What did he do in that year?

    Hmm makes you think - Manchurian candidate?
  • Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    20 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    21 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Polling has closed and prices are beginning to move.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    22 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.03 Liz Truss 97%
    25 Rishi Sunak 4%
  • Scott_xP said:

    “Do we definitely want to go with *brighter* future?”

    “Why not?”

    “Well there’s that thing about 70 per cent of pubs and shops shutting down because they can’t afford to switch the lights on that you’re completely ignoring?”

    “Bugger it, I’ve won anyway. Leave it as is.”

    “Ok.”

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1565718554804109312

    Possibilities we can't exclude:

    She's doing all this really badly for a bet.

    She's doing all this really badly as part of some kink that I can't begin to fathom. Where's Leon when we need him?
This discussion has been closed.