politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Immigration, immigration, immigration – it hasn’t gone away yo

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Immigration, immigration, immigration – it hasn’t gone away you know.

Immigration was one of the major issues in the referendum debate. The influx of several million Europeans coming to a country which had made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population changed the political landscape and enabled in no small way the decision to leave the EU.

Read the full story here

RobD

First, and thank you for the header, Viscount Alanbrooke.

edmundintokyo

*** DUMB BRITISH RIGHT-WING TROPE KLAXON ***

Merkel who wants to push her immigration problem on to the rest of Europe

It's Italy, Hungary and Greece that have the problem. Germany has been doing a lot to help, and she wants other countries to do more. They don't have to, and don't want to, so they probably won't.

Meanwhile the problem is getting less bad as the US is getting less enthusiastic about destroying Muslim countries' governments.

YellowSubmarine

On topic: Some interesting global ILO figures in this Guardian piece. Global migration is up about 45m in the last five years. Though better data and population growth are factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/conflicts-and-poverty-drive-big-jump-in-global-migration-finds-report

swing_voter

British politicians are incapable about sensible discussions on this matter - I think a Royal Commission is probably needed. a lot of waffle, (unjusitifed) fear and false stats fuel a real sense of crisis. Not to mention it was weaponised during the referendum and will remain so for the forseeable future.

MartinVegas

OK, bringing this back to Brexit (I know...)

TMay said tonight that Brexit is about controlling the border. It certainly is/was the most important issue to a lot of people.

So the deal she agreed ends free movement.

However, it includes an open border in Ireland and every discussion about this is with regards to trade not people - the backstop (which is the biggest issue) is meant to go away with a free trade deal, but the open border would remain, without free movement.

But what is free movement with regards to controlling the border? Ending free movement means EU nationals can no longer work in the UK. The open border means they can travel to Ireland, quite legally, then catch a bus to Belfast and a ferry back to the UK. Or even a ferry direct from Dublin to Wales. Nothing the UK can do to stop this. All they have to do is tell the Irish that they don't intend to go to the UK. Ah, you say, but they can't work. Legally, they can't, but if you think that will make the issue go away, I've got a wall across the Mexican/US border to sell you.

So inevitably, in a few years, or even a few months time, even if the deal goes through, the story will quickly become 'illegal immigration' - the subtext of this article. Just wait until the Sun and Mail start running stories on Romanians skipping back into the country. Everyone who is resented now for being 'foreign' will also be assumed to be 'illegal'.

There will be a lot of people feeling betrayed because controlling the border with an open border is a lie. Even worse, because illegal immigration will inevitably rise, the anger will be far worse, and far more easy for the far right to exploit. And as a particularly nasty side effect, the clamour will be to harden the border in Ireland, after suitable blaming of the Irish.

So even if a deal, or no deal goes through, the actual thing that got people so riled up that they voted leave (helped along by decades of anti-immigrant stoking from Dacre and co.) will not be fixed. It will actually get worse.

Thanks a lot, David Cameron.

YellowSubmarine

On Topic: The Guardian has selected migration as the theme of it's annual charity appeal. I won't link to the donation page but the most interesting thing about these appeals is the body of articles commissioned to accompany them. It runs into the new year and they will be collated here https://www.theguardian.com/society/series/guardian-and-observer-charity-appeal-2018
A lot will be on the work if the five British charities who have been selected to share the donation pot.

Fishing

swing_voter said:

British politicians are incapable about sensible discussions on this matter - I think a Royal Commission is probably needed. a lot of waffle, (unjusitifed) fear and false stats fuel a real sense of crisis. Not to mention it was weaponised during the referendum and will remain so for the forseeable future.

No, it was weaponised when Bliar and his cronies decided to sabotage our immigration controls to "rub the right's nose in diversity". Whether or not anybody used those exact words, that's what happened. And of course, like so much of what they did, it has backfired spectacularly.

asjohnstone

swing_voter said:

British politicians are incapable about sensible discussions on this matter - I think a Royal Commission is probably needed. a lot of waffle, (unjusitifed) fear and false stats fuel a real sense of crisis. Not to mention it was weaponised during the referendum and will remain so for the forseeable future.

The people aren't going to stand for government by experts any more. Those days are over, the people are engaged and want their demands enacted, no matter how stupid they may be.

AlastairMeeks

Why isn’t this being talked about? Because Britain is being consumed by Brexit. It’s a first class example of how Brexit is preventing a discussion about something that actually matters to a lot of people. The opportunity cost alone is immense.

JackW

Is the thread picture Nigel Farage leading the ERG and fellow travellers to the promised land and last redoubt of Clacton-On-Sea ?

YellowSubmarine

This Conservative Home piece was published 4 + hours before yesterday's result and used the exact result figures, 200 to 117 , as one of it's benchmarks.

https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2018/12/the-200-vote-test-barrier-for-may.html

YBarddCwsc

The present Dublin Convention is broken, and it can’t be sustained. It puts undue pressure on the states -- which by an accident of geography -- lie close to Africa or the Middle East.

The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.

Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.

This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.

Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.

For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.

If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.

Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.

Pulpstar

Weirdly perhaps the easiest item to sort in the brexit negotiations..

YellowSubmarine

Second piece of research published in a week showing extreme Remain views/feelings now equal extreme Leave views/feelings.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/11/brexit-study-finds-significant-decrease-in-diehard-leave-backers

Donny43

MartinVegas said:

Ending free movement means EU nationals can no longer work in the UK. The open border means they can travel to Ireland, quite legally, then catch a bus to Belfast and a ferry back to the UK. Or even a ferry direct from Dublin to Wales. Nothing the UK can do to stop this. All they have to do is tell the Irish that they don't intend to go to the UK. Ah, you say, but they can't work.

What I say is that if they can legally travel to Ireland, they can legally travel to the UK as a tourist and just overstay - much easier.

edmundintokyo

Donny43 said:

MartinVegas said:

Ending free movement means EU nationals can no longer work in the UK. The open border means they can travel to Ireland, quite legally, then catch a bus to Belfast and a ferry back to the UK. Or even a ferry direct from Dublin to Wales. Nothing the UK can do to stop this. All they have to do is tell the Irish that they don't intend to go to the UK. Ah, you say, but they can't work.

What I say is that if they can legally travel to Ireland, they can legally travel to the UK as a tourist and just overstay - much easier.

Yup, that seems simpler for most cases, doesn't it? But the broader point is right, that the voters think they can get rid of various foreign undesirables by taking back *control of the borders* whereas in fact borders are much less effective at things like that than they think.

At some point a little while after Brexit the're going to realize that the undesirables are still there, and go back to feeling ANGRY and BETRAYED at the political class that will appear to have brexitted incorrectly.

Black_Rook

FPT

Oort said:

Black_Rook said:

And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.

When is the exact date on which, if the DUP do pull the plug, and decide to keep it pulled for 14 days, they could wreck the chances of avoiding No Deal? I'm not sure there is one. If a GE is mandated because 14 days have elapsed since a VONC without a VOC, then under s2(7) "the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister". Whatever day is set for the GE, Parliament is dissolved on the 17th working day before it. What law stops the GE being called for 4 months ahead if the PM considers it necessary given a national emergency?

Ah, yes. Silly me. There's your (potential) get-out clause, if she were willing to use it.

Would I be right that Theresa May stays in office under those circumstances? In ye olden days the fall of the Government would've implied that the Leader of the Opposition would've been called by the Queen, but I'm guessing now that the incumbent stays put unless or until someone else can win a VoC?

Nigelb said:

And would PM May be prepared to revoke A50 in any event ?

The irony is that there is, in the right circumstance, quite possibly a majority in the Commons prepared to revoke A50 anyway - but no way of having a PM in place before March 29th who would do so.

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

DavidL

The new UN Convention does not, AIUI from friends who do this sort of work, create legal rights as such but sets a series of standards which signatories are supposed to measure their system against. This may influence how that system is interpreted at the margins. What it is also indicative of is that the old asylum system is breaking down because the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is in the large part ignored in setting those standards. The underlying principle that people are to be treated decently whether they are economic migrants, illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or authorised migrants is hard to argue with (unless you are Trump of course).

In the EU Schengen means it is very easy for such migrants, once they have entered the EU, to move from country to country and the Dublin Convention is, for the large part, being ignored as placing impossible burdens on states like Italy. We are not in Schengen but have the equivalent with the CTA with Eire. If, post Brexit, there were to be large numbers of eastern Europeans taking advantage of their right of free movement to Eire and then the lack of a border in NI to gain access to the UK enthusiasm for the lack of a hard border in NI may wane fairly quickly. It is possible that this is yet another reason to not accept the backstop.

As Robert pointed out some weeks ago the reality, as shown by Switzerland, is that immigration is best controlled internally by creating a hostile environment (to coin a phrase) within the country making it illegal to employ, house, educate, treat, provide bank accounts to illegal immigrants. Such a policy has resulted in much criticism of May who introduced it and there will be questions as to the extent to which such a regime is compatible with the new Convention. There is little doubt though that an immigration policy largely based on borders alone is one that will fail.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

Weirdly perhaps the easiest item to sort in the brexit negotiations..

I’m not sure that even Nigel Farage wanted to start deporting Europeans who had come here to work hard and behave themselves.

Foxy

DavidL said:

The new UN Convention does not, AIUI from friends who do this sort of work, create legal rights as such but sets a series of standards which signatories are supposed to measure their system against. This may influence how that system is interpreted at the margins. What it is also indicative of is that the old asylum system is breaking down because the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is in the large part ignored in setting those standards. The underlying principle that people are to be treated decently whether they are economic migrants, illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or authorised migrants is hard to argue with (unless you are Trump of course).

In the EU Schengen means it is very easy for such migrants, once they have entered the EU, to move from country to country and the Dublin Convention is, for the large part, being ignored as placing impossible burdens on states like Italy. We are not in Schengen but have the equivalent with the CTA with Eire. If, post Brexit, there were to be large numbers of eastern Europeans taking advantage of their right of free movement to Eire and then the lack of a border in NI to gain access to the UK enthusiasm for the lack of a hard border in NI may wane fairly quickly. It is possible that this is yet another reason to not accept the backstop.

As Robert pointed out some weeks ago the reality, as shown by Switzerland, is that immigration is best controlled internally by creating a hostile environment (to coin a phrase) within the country making it illegal to employ, house, educate, treat, provide bank accounts to illegal immigrants. Such a policy has resulted in much criticism of May who introduced it and there will be questions as to the extent to which such a regime is compatible with the new Convention. There is little doubt though that an immigration policy largely based on borders alone is one that will fail.

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

swing_voter

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Weirdly perhaps the easiest item to sort in the brexit negotiations..

I’m not sure that even Nigel Farage wanted to start deporting Europeans who had come here to work hard and behave themselves.

He did say he preferred Germans as neighbours to Bulgarians or Romanians....(was it an Aryan thing?)

MarqueeMark

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

Donny43

Black_Rook said:

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history.

That strikes me as even more dangerous than Parliament as is just overturning the referendum result as it feels like goalpost moving.

swing_voter

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

DavidL

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

That is a matter in our hands and the government is clear that even in the event of a no deal Brexit the existing rights of those migrants will be protected. It is, however, something that will require legislation and a massive amount of additional regulatory control. I don't see how we avoid issuing 4m certificates giving rights of occupancy, work etc. It seems incredible to me that work is not further advanced on that. It is going to be a massive logistical task.

Donny43

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

The new UN Convention does not, AIUI from friends who do this sort of work, create legal rights as such but sets a series of standards which signatories are supposed to measure their system against. This may influence how that system is interpreted at the margins. What it is also indicative of is that the old asylum system is breaking down because the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is in the large part ignored in setting those standards. The underlying principle that people are to be treated decently whether they are economic migrants, illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or authorised migrants is hard to argue with (unless you are Trump of course).

In the EU Schengen means it is very easy for such migrants, once they have entered the EU, to move from country to country and the Dublin Convention is, for the large part, being ignored as placing impossible burdens on states like Italy. We are not in Schengen but have the equivalent with the CTA with Eire. If, post Brexit, there were to be large numbers of eastern Europeans taking advantage of their right of free movement to Eire and then the lack of a border in NI to gain access to the UK enthusiasm for the lack of a hard border in NI may wane fairly quickly. It is possible that this is yet another reason to not accept the backstop.

As Robert pointed out some weeks ago the reality, as shown by Switzerland, is that immigration is best controlled internally by creating a hostile environment (to coin a phrase) within the country making it illegal to employ, house, educate, treat, provide bank accounts to illegal immigrants. Such a policy has resulted in much criticism of May who introduced it and there will be questions as to the extent to which such a regime is compatible with the new Convention. There is little doubt though that an immigration policy largely based on borders alone is one that will fail.

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight

No, that's not the case. The government has already agreed that such people will retain their rights even in the event of no deal.

MarqueeMark

swing_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

May's been in the shit she has been in BECAUSE she is trying to give the 48% a voice.... They won't get a better one.

Foxy

Donny43 said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

The new UN Convention does not, AIUI from friends who do this sort of work, create legal rights as such but sets a series of standards which signatories are supposed to measure their system against. This may influence how that system is interpreted at the margins. What it is also indicative of is that the old asylum system is breaking down because the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is in the large part ignored in setting those standards. The underlying principle that people are to be treated decently whether they are economic migrants, illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or authorised migrants is hard to argue with (unless you are Trump of course).

In the EU Schengen means it is very easy for such migrants, once they have entered the EU, to move from country to country and the Dublin Convention is, for the large part, being ignored as placing impossible burdens on states like Italy. We are not in Schengen but have the equivalent with the CTA with Eire. If, post Brexit, there were to be large numbers of eastern Europeans taking advantage of their right of free movement to Eire and then the lack of a border in NI to gain access to the UK enthusiasm for the lack of a hard border in NI may wane fairly quickly. It is possible that this is yet another reason to not accept the backstop.

As Robert pointed out some weeks ago the reality, as shown by Switzerland, is that immigration is best controlled internally by creating a hostile environment (to coin a phrase) within the country making it illegal to employ, house, educate, treat, provide bank accounts to illegal immigrants. Such a policy has resulted in much criticism of May who introduced it and there will be questions as to the extent to which such a regime is compatible with the new Convention. There is little doubt though that an immigration policy largely based on borders alone is one that will fail.

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight

No, that's not the case. The government has already agreed that such people will retain their rights even in the event of no deal.

It has yet to pass any law on the issue though.

Donny43

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

That is a matter in our hands and the government is clear that even in the event of a no deal Brexit the existing rights of those migrants will be protected. It is, however, something that will require legislation and a massive amount of additional regulatory control. I don't see how we avoid issuing 4m certificates giving rights of occupancy, work etc. It seems incredible to me that work is not further advanced on that. It is going to be a massive logistical task.

https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

OldKingCole

swing_voter said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Weirdly perhaps the easiest item to sort in the brexit negotiations..

I’m not sure that even Nigel Farage wanted to start deporting Europeans who had come here to work hard and behave themselves.

He did say he preferred Germans as neighbours to Bulgarians or Romanians....(was it an Aryan thing?)

He was (not sure if he still is) married to a German lady.

RobD

Foxy said:

Donny43 said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

The new UN Convention does not, AIUI from friends who do this sort of work, create legal rights as such but sets a series of standards which signatories are supposed to measure their system against. This may influence how that system is interpreted at the margins. What it is also indicative of is that the old asylum system is breaking down because the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is in the large part ignored in setting those standards. The underlying principle that people are to be treated decently whether they are economic migrants, illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or authorised migrants is hard to argue with (unless you are Trump of course).

In the EU Schengen means it is very easy for such migrants, once they have entered the EU, to move from country to country and the Dublin Convention is, for the large part, being ignored as placing impossible burdens on states like Italy. We are not in Schengen but have the equivalent with the CTA with Eire. If, post Brexit, there were to be large numbers of eastern Europeans taking advantage of their right of free movement to Eire and then the lack of a border in NI to gain access to the UK enthusiasm for the lack of a hard border in NI may wane fairly quickly. It is possible that this is yet another reason to not accept the backstop.

As Robert pointed out some weeks ago the reality, as shown by Switzerland, is that immigration is best controlled internally by creating a hostile environment (to coin a phrase) within the country making it illegal to employ, house, educate, treat, provide bank accounts to illegal immigrants. Such a policy has resulted in much criticism of May who introduced it and there will be questions as to the extent to which such a regime is compatible with the new Convention. There is little doubt though that an immigration policy largely based on borders alone is one that will fail.

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight

No, that's not the case. The government has already agreed that such people will retain their rights even in the event of no deal.

It has yet to pass any law on the issue though.

Remainers will block that, too?

daodao

AlastairMeeks said:

Why isn’t this being talked about? Because Britain is being consumed by Brexit. It’s a first class example of how Brexit is preventing a discussion about something that actually matters to a lot of people. The opportunity cost alone is immense.

No way should the UK sign this deal. Orban, Trump et al have the right approach. The UK is at breaking point.

Foxy

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

That is a matter in our hands and the government is clear that even in the event of a no deal Brexit the existing rights of those migrants will be protected. It is, however, something that will require legislation and a massive amount of additional regulatory control. I don't see how we avoid issuing 4m certificates giving rights of occupancy, work etc. It seems incredible to me that work is not further advanced on that. It is going to be a massive logistical task.

Any one who has ever dealt with the Home Office, would be surprised if they could cope with the issue.

In practice we would have to ignore the regulations on illegal immigration for years while sorting out a system. Many NHS jobs are short contracts with high turnover, so it is not just an issue for existing employees, but also for new job applications. Could any department cope without locum doctors or agency nurses?

OldKingCole

swing_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

As a Stayer I’m inclined to accept the Deal. It’s the least disruptive to commerce and gives us a good chance of Re-joining when tempers have cooled.
Of course, now we know we can just revoke Article 50, that gives more scope.

Foxy

Donny43 said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

That is a matter in our hands and the government is clear that even in the event of a no deal Brexit the existing rights of those migrants will be protected. It is, however, something that will require legislation and a massive amount of additional regulatory control. I don't see how we avoid issuing 4m certificates giving rights of occupancy, work etc. It seems incredible to me that work is not further advanced on that. It is going to be a massive logistical task.

https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

It doesn't even fully open until 30th of March, so on that day there will become millions of illegal workers. It will take years for the Home Office to issue the right papers. On past performance it is not likely to be a smooth process.

MarqueeMark

OldKingCole said:

Of course, now we know we can just revoke Article 50, that gives more scope.

Revocation is a time-limited deal though: you have to use it by 29th March, or it expires.....

RobD

Foxy said:

Donny43 said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

That is a matter in our hands and the government is clear that even in the event of a no deal Brexit the existing rights of those migrants will be protected. It is, however, something that will require legislation and a massive amount of additional regulatory control. I don't see how we avoid issuing 4m certificates giving rights of occupancy, work etc. It seems incredible to me that work is not further advanced on that. It is going to be a massive logistical task.

https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

It doesn't even fully open until 30th of March, so on that day there will become millions of illegal workers. It will take years for the Home Office to issue the right papers. On past performance it is not likely to be a smooth process.

I think it’s a distinct category. It doesn’t mean EU workers will be illegal on 30th March.

daodao

YBarddCwsc said:

The present Dublin Convention is broken, and it can’t be sustained. It puts undue pressure on the states -- which by an accident of geography -- lie close to Africa or the Middle East.

The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.

Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.

This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.

Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.

For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.

If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.

Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.

Some European states have far too many people who are alien to European Christian values. This results in the sort of incident that happened in Strasbourg/Straßburg earlier this week. Other European states have recognised this problem and don't want to import it to their own countries. I don't criticise them for this approach. Orban's approach is far wiser than Merkel's.

Foxy

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Donny43 said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight, including a significant percentage of my department. Of course it would be absurd to treat them as such, but in law it will become an offence for an employer to pay them, for a landlord to rent to them, for a bank to give them a mortgage or even an account. The "hostile environment" will apply, and it would be racist to apply it it african irregulars but not european ones.

I cannot see it being enforced, but an interesting wrinkle.

That is a matter in our hands and the government is clear that even in the event of a no deal Brexit the existing rights of those migrants will be protected. It is, however, something that will require legislation and a massive amount of additional regulatory control. I don't see how we avoid issuing 4m certificates giving rights of occupancy, work etc. It seems incredible to me that work is not further advanced on that. It is going to be a massive logistical task.

https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

It doesn't even fully open until 30th of March, so on that day there will become millions of illegal workers. It will take years for the Home Office to issue the right papers. On past performance it is not likely to be a smooth process.

I think it’s a distinct category. It doesn’t mean EU workers will be illegal on 30th March.

It would unless we maintain EU/EEA FOM post No Deal Brexit.

One of many absurdities that we are entering...

notme

YellowSubmarine said:

On Topic: The Guardian has selected migration as the theme of it's annual charity appeal. I won't link to the donation page but the most interesting thing about these appeals is the body of articles commissioned to accompany them. It runs into the new year and they will be collated here https://www.theguardian.com/society/series/guardian-and-observer-charity-appeal-2018
A lot will be on the work if the five British charities who have been selected to share the donation pot.

Which is why the guardian is about as reliable a source of information on immigration as the mail is.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:


"The BBC project to replace and expand the external set of EastEnders will now cost £27m more than originally planned.

The original 2015 forecast for the E20 scheme was £59.7m, but the revised budget is now £86.7m."

The project is also going to be five years late.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700

Donny43

Foxy said:

Donny43 said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

The new UN Convention does not, AIUI from friends who do this sort of work, create legal rights as such but sets a series of standards which signatories are supposed to measure their system against. This may influence how that system is interpreted at the margins. What it is also indicative of is that the old asylum system is breaking down because the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is in the large part ignored in setting those standards. The underlying principle that people are to be treated decently whether they are economic migrants, illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or authorised migrants is hard to argue with (unless you are Trump of course).

In the EU Schengen means it is very easy for such migrants, once they have entered the EU, to move from country to country and the Dublin Convention is, for the large part, being ignored as placing impossible burdens on states like Italy. We are not in Schengen but have the equivalent with the CTA with Eire. If, post Brexit, there were to be large numbers of eastern Europeans taking advantage of their right of free movement to Eire and then the lack of a border in NI to gain access to the UK enthusiasm for the lack of a hard border in NI may wane fairly quickly. It is possible that this is yet another reason to not accept the backstop.

As Robert pointed out some weeks ago the reality, as shown by Switzerland, is that immigration is best controlled internally by creating a hostile environment (to coin a phrase) within the country making it illegal to employ, house, educate, treat, provide bank accounts to illegal immigrants. Such a policy has resulted in much criticism of May who introduced it and there will be questions as to the extent to which such a regime is compatible with the new Convention. There is little doubt though that an immigration policy largely based on borders alone is one that will fail.

One interesting aspect of No Deal Brexit is that several million EU citizens in the UK become illegals overnight

No, that's not the case. The government has already agreed that such people will retain their rights even in the event of no deal.

It has yet to pass any law on the issue though.

http://www.ukcen.co.uk/settled-status-is-law-deal-or-no-deal/

Foxy

daodao said:

YBarddCwsc said:

The present Dublin Convention is broken, and it can’t be sustained. It puts undue pressure on the states -- which by an accident of geography -- lie close to Africa or the Middle East.

The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.

Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.

This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.

Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.

For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.

If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.

Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.

Some European states have far too many people who are alien to European Christian values. This results in the sort of incident that happened in Strasbourg/Straßburg earlier this week. Other European states have recognised this problem and don't want to import it to their own countries. I don't criticise them for this approach. Orban's approach is far wiser than Merkel's.

Since the Brexit vote, the amount of Non EU immigration, mostly from Africa, Middle East and Asia has gone up. Those objecting to cultural change are going to be a bit surprised.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1073114860106498048

IanB2

IDS on R4 criticising the chancellor for describing the rebels as extremists, saying "when parties turn on each other it is the beginning of the end" - the same man whose office was used yesterday to organise the coup and nicknamed the 'kill zone'!

IanB2

What happened to Farage's new party; wasn't the launch supposed to be on Monday?

OldKingCole

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Of course, now we know we can just revoke Article 50, that gives more scope.

Revocation is a time-limited deal though: you have to use it by 29th March, or it expires.....

C’est vrai......

Jonathan

There will always be people banging on about immigration. Regardless of policy. It’s a feature of a globalised economy.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116524699967488

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116729038045184

notme

swing_voter said:

British politicians are incapable about sensible discussions on this matter - I think a Royal Commission is probably needed. a lot of waffle, (unjusitifed) fear and false stats fuel a real sense of crisis. Not to mention it was weaponised during the referendum and will remain so for the forseeable future.

Or the false stats that somehow show an unskilled Eastern European on minimum wage, who earns £12k, pays no income tax, and sends £11k of working tax and child tax credit home, as well as a further £2,500 per annum, and don’t let’s flrget their eligibility for housing benefit.

But remember folks, these unskilled migrants on minimum wage are making a net contribution....

Sandpit

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:


"The BBC project to replace and expand the external set of EastEnders will now cost £27m more than originally planned.

The original 2015 forecast for the E20 scheme was £59.7m, but the revised budget is now £86.7m."

The project is also going to be five years late.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700

How on Earth does a couple of streets of fake building facades cost £90m? Are they relocating Eastenders to Mayfair?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1073118594853167104

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:


"The BBC project to replace and expand the external set of EastEnders will now cost £27m more than originally planned.

The original 2015 forecast for the E20 scheme was £59.7m, but the revised budget is now £86.7m."

The project is also going to be five years late.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700

How on Earth does a couple of streets of fake building facades cost £90m? Are they relocating Eastenders to Mayfair?

Was a time it would have been cheaper to buy the East End....

SandyRentool

IanB2 said:

What happened to Farage's new party; wasn't the launch supposed to be on Monday?

Maybe the ERG asked him to delay the launch until they were ready?

It would be quite dramatic if a bunch of Tories turned up alongside Farage and some other ex-Kippers to launch a new party.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/TheUKDemocrat/status/1073118796414627840

tottenhamWC

swing_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

It is ultimately Labour and the minority parties stopping this - for political reasons.

Far more conservative Brexiteers are anti the deal than remainers. If the Tories could get their proverbial together there would be much more pressure on Labour to support the deal (so this is fundamentally really a conservative issue first and foremost).

Given the above dynamic, there needs to be something new that breaks out of the status quo that calls Labour's bluff - either a softer Brexit or a referendum.

Otherwise we are heading for no deal and the conservatives will have to own this. But worse, it will still need to get sorted - no deal is clearly very temporary.

FF43

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:


"The BBC project to replace and expand the external set of EastEnders will now cost £27m more than originally planned.

The original 2015 forecast for the E20 scheme was £59.7m, but the revised budget is now £86.7m."

The project is also going to be five years late.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46521700

One of the pleasures of watching early episodes of Neighbours was seeing the walls wobble every time someone closed a door.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1073119427464437760

Richard_Tyndall

swing_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

Yes it does. It deals with Northern Ireland and Gibraltar and it is about as soft a Brexit as it is possible to get. Unless you are one of those anti democrats who refuses to accept anything but Remain in which case you are an extemist nutter just as much as the ERG and deserve to be ignored.

Alistair

YBarddCwsc said:

The present Dublin Convention is broken, and it can’t be sustained. It puts undue pressure on the states -- which by an accident of geography -- lie close to Africa or the Middle East.

The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.

Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.

This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.

Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.

For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.

If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.

Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.

Don't worry, two of my Eastern European friends at work have quit and are moving back home due to worries over Brexit. We'll soon have those countries repopulated, at the expense of losing good software engineers here.

Donny43

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116524699967488

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116729038045184

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

Sandpit

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1073114860106498048

If Vince Cable isn’t tapping her up, he’s failing completely as a party leader.

SandyRentool

tottenhamWC said:

swing_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

It is ultimately Labour and the minority parties stopping this - for political reasons.

Far more conservative Brexiteers are anti the deal than remainers. If the Tories could get their proverbial together there would be much more pressure on Labour to support the deal (so this is fundamentally really a conservative issue first and foremost).

Given the above dynamic, there needs to be something new that breaks out of the status quo that calls Labour's bluff - either a softer Brexit or a referendum.

Otherwise we are heading for no deal and the conservatives will have to own this. But worse, it will still need to get sorted - no deal is clearly very temporary.

I think your final sentence sums up Labour's position - they want the Tories to own Brexit. Anything that goes wrong between now and the next GE can then be pinned on the Tories poor Brexit deal (or lack of a deal) and Labour just has to say "we would have got a better deal" and wait to form a government.

Alanbrooke

Macron gets a break.?

The attack on Strasbourg has led to calls to stop all demos to free the police up.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2018/12/12/25001-20181212ARTFIG00169-apres-l-attaque-de-strasbourg-des-politiques-demandent-l-arret-des-gilets-jaunes.php

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

swing_voter said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Weirdly perhaps the easiest item to sort in the brexit negotiations..

I’m not sure that even Nigel Farage wanted to start deporting Europeans who had come here to work hard and behave themselves.

He did say he preferred Germans as neighbours to Bulgarians or Romanians....(was it an Aryan thing?)

He was (not sure if he still is) married to a German lady.

He screws Germans, but screws over Bulgarians?

Scott_P

Donny43 said:

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

If it doesn't have Commons support, May can revoke Article 50 to avoid it.

Annnnnnnnd we're back...

OldKingCole

tottenhamWC said:

swing_voter said:

MarqueeMark said:

Black_Rook said:

I've been banging on about this for a while. If Theresa May really digs her heels in over her deal and refuses to budge (and I think we can appreciate by now that she is very stubborn,) then the only weapon left at the Remainers' disposal is to effect a political realignment. The Conservative pro-EU forces can't split their own party and leave Labour in one piece - firstly because they would be wiped out at the General Election that would soon follow, secondly because they'd never vote for Prime Minister Corbyn - so they need the Labour pro-EU MPs to jump ship in tandem.

If both sides quit en masse then they might well (especially with the help of the SNP and other bits and pieces) have the Commons majority needed to form an emergency Government, repeal all the Brexit legislation and then revoke A50. It's the only way I can see, so long as Theresa May won't give in, that we avoid No Deal - but it would involve a complete re-ordering of the party political system, arguably more dramatic and sudden than anything previously seen in our history. That is why the probability of No Deal by default seems so significant. To me, anyway.

It's only the Remainers, digging their heels in and keeping to the hope of ignoring the Referendum result, that keeps No Deal alive. Just give up, Remainers - accept the Referendum result, vote for/abstain on May's deal, then we can all get on with life.

that provides no solution to Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the 48% plus who deserve a voice

It is ultimately Labour and the minority parties stopping this - for political reasons.

Far more conservative Brexiteers are anti the deal than remainers. If the Tories could get their proverbial together there would be much more pressure on Labour to support the deal (so this is fundamentally really a conservative issue first and foremost).

Given the above dynamic, there needs to be something new that breaks out of the status quo that calls Labour's bluff - either a softer Brexit or a referendum.

Otherwise we are heading for no deal and the conservatives will have to own this. But worse, it will still need to get sorted - no deal is clearly very temporary.

'It is ultimately Labour and the minority parties stopping this - for political reasons.’

Yes; they recognise that reasonably large numbers of people now realise that a Leave vote was a mistake and if the vote was re-run the margin might well be the other way. We really shouldn't make such an enormous change on a tiny majority of votes.

YellowSubmarine

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

What happened to Farage's new party; wasn't the launch supposed to be on Monday?

Maybe the ERG asked him to delay the launch until they were ready?

It would be quite dramatic if a bunch of Tories turned up alongside Farage and some other ex-Kippers to launch a new party.

I think they might also be waiting to see if the new party is actually the DUP. It's been floated before and if the backstop doesn't go ( which in the absence of the softest of Brexits it won't ) that might tip the balance in DUP thinking.

tottenhamWC

From the Guardian:
Duncan Smith dismissed the idea of reaching a consensus with Labour as coming from a “mad place”.

More of a mad place than the idea of reaching a consensus with the ERG?

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1073114860106498048

If Vince Cable isn’t tapping her up, he’s failing completely as a party leader.

That first clause was unnecessary.

Donny43

Scott_P said:

Donny43 said:

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

If it doesn't have Commons support, May can revoke Article 50 to avoid it.

Annnnnnnnd we're back...

Not without passing primary legislation, as I proved last night.

But that misses the point, anyway. You can't "rule out no deal", you can only replace it with either passing a deal or overturning the 2016 result.

ydoethur

Scott_P said:

Donny43 said:

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

If it doesn't have Commons support, May can revoke Article 50 to avoid it.

Annnnnnnnd we're back...

For which she would need the support of the Commons and arguably another referendum as well.

You wonder if the judges of the CJEU are good friends of Rees-Mogg and Corbyn...

SandyRentool

YellowSubmarine said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

What happened to Farage's new party; wasn't the launch supposed to be on Monday?

Maybe the ERG asked him to delay the launch until they were ready?

It would be quite dramatic if a bunch of Tories turned up alongside Farage and some other ex-Kippers to launch a new party.

I think they might also be waiting to see if the new party is actually the DUP. It's been floated before and if the backstop doesn't go ( which in the absence of the softest of Brexits it won't ) that might tip the balance in DUP thinking.

Sorry, who is joining the DUP? Farage or the ERG?

Scott_P

Donny43 said:

Not without passing primary legislation, as I proved last night.

Except you didn't. And round we go again.

But, even if it is required, if there is no Commons majority for no deal there probably is for revoking Article 50 to avoid it.

ydoethur

SandyRentool said:

YellowSubmarine said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

What happened to Farage's new party; wasn't the launch supposed to be on Monday?

Maybe the ERG asked him to delay the launch until they were ready?

It would be quite dramatic if a bunch of Tories turned up alongside Farage and some other ex-Kippers to launch a new party.

I think they might also be waiting to see if the new party is actually the DUP. It's been floated before and if the backstop doesn't go ( which in the absence of the softest of Brexits it won't ) that might tip the balance in DUP thinking.

Sorry, who is joining the DUP? Farage or the ERG?

If Farage did join the DUP, the references to him being a pound shop Enoch Powell joining a pound shop Unionist group might get tiresome.

ydoethur

Scott_P said:

Donny43 said:

Not without passing primary legislation, as I proved last night.

Except you didn't. And round we go again.

But, even if it is required, if there is no Commons majority for no deal there probably is for revoking Article 50 to avoid it.

He did, actually.

Even theoretically, May would need a vote in Parliament. In the real world, it's politically vital too.

Sandpit

Donny43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116524699967488

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116729038045184

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

No deal is already legislated for in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, any deal or other option that changes that status quo needs to be legislated for between now and 29th March.

A single vote in the Commons can’t stop no deal, no matter how much those wishing that outcome think it can. I’m not even sure that most of the MPs have yet realised they’re not going to get a single day off in Q1 next year. There’s going to be a *lot* of bills to pass.

Donny43

Scott_P said:

Donny43 said:

Not without passing primary legislation, as I proved last night.

Except you didn't. And round we go again.

But, even if it is required, if there is no Commons majority for no deal there probably is for revoking Article 50 to avoid it.

Yes, round we go again: someone proves you are wrong and you just ignore them.

FF43

I suspect this is correct. We don't have to agree with her, if so.

https://twitter.com/AllieRenison/status/1072906058740523010

Edit I mean agree with the assertion that leaving in an orderly fashion is optional but leaving on 29th March isn't.

Alanbrooke

French politics no more stable than UK politics

The RN ( old front Nationale ) tops the poll for Euro elections with 24%
Macron trails at 18%.
Melenchon at 9%
amaxingly the Socialists the one time government are on 4.5%

so currently a third of french voters are off to the extremes

http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/2018/12/13/25001-20181213ARTFIG00048-europeennes-un-sondage-donne-le-rn-en-tete-loin-devant-larem.php

Scott_P

Donny43 said:

Yes, round we go again: someone proves you are wrong and you just ignore them.

You didn't prove it, but never mind. I suspect we shall find out in due course.

tottenhamWC

It feels to me like Labour are playing this situation quite cleverly; more longer-term strategically vs. the Tories short-term, very limited tactical approach.

Given the trends and the implications of what happens in March next year; Labour is being much smarter in my opinion.

The conservatives need a real, game changing strategic response or face the very real consequences.

And no deal isn't that answer - it is simply the outcome of not adapting to face the political reality.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Donny43 said:

Scott_P said:

Donny43 said:

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

If it doesn't have Commons support, May can revoke Article 50 to avoid it.

Annnnnnnnd we're back...

Not without passing primary legislation, as I proved last night.

But that misses the point, anyway. You can't "rule out no deal", you can only replace it with either passing a deal or overturning the 2016 result.

You proved nothing of the sort. Like so many others, you read section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which repeals the 1972 Act with effect 29 March 2019.

But you didn't read section 25, which says section 1 is not in force, and requires secondary legislation to bring into force.

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1073114860106498048

If Vince Cable isn’t tapping her up, he’s failing completely as a party leader.

That first clause was unnecessary.

LOL true, but given the Parliamentary arithmetic a couple of floor-crossers changes things quite dramatically.

If not Cable himself then one of the young hopefuls Moran or Swinson should be in charge of sweet talking the likes of Wollaston and Heidi Allen.

It would be a massive coup for the LDs to bag a Tory MP, but they almost don’t seem interested any more.

Alanbrooke

VONC today !

http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2018/12/12/01002-20181212ARTFIG00298-gilets-jaunes-tensions-a-gauche-autour-de-la-motion-de-censure.php

Macron should walk it

Donny43

Sandpit said:

Donny43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116524699967488

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116729038045184

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

No deal is already legislated for in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, any deal or other option that changes that status quo needs to be legislated for between now and 29th March.

A single vote in the Commons can’t stop no deal, no matter how much those wishing that outcome think it can. I’m not even sure that most of the MPs have yet realised they’re not going to get a single day off in Q1 next year. There’s going to be a *lot* of bills to pass.

One thing we've learned is that MPs aren't very good at recognising the implications of things - passing the EUNOWA, defining exit day in the EUWA, the backstop...

SandyRentool

If the deal falls, May stays and tries to push through No Deal, then I suspect sufficient Tory wets will jump ship so that a VONC would pass in the house. What happens next is anyone's guess.

SquareRoot

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1073119427464437760

I heard him after the vote.. He is another piece of work who thinks a lot more of himself that the rest of us. Soames is spot on.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1073114860106498048

If Vince Cable isn’t tapping her up, he’s failing completely as a party leader.

That first clause was unnecessary.

LOL true, but given the Parliamentary arithmetic a couple of floor-crossers changes things quite dramatically.

If not Cable himself then one of the young hopefuls Moran or Swindon should be in charge of sweet talking the likes of Wollaston and Heidi Allen.

It would be a massive coup for the LDs to bag a Tory MP but they almost don’t seem interested any more.

Vince is even older than Corbyn and while he doesn't have Corbyn's baggage he also never seems to have quite recovered his nerve from first the Telegraph sting (the ramifications of which as near as toucher ended the career of an Old Carthusian called Jeremy Hunt as well - wonder what happened to him?) and second losing his seat in 2015. I don't think the fact he probably still blames himself for tuition fees has helped either.

He made a bad error of judgement by not retiring gracefully then and morphing into the role of elder statesman a la Clarke. He's trashed what would otherwise have been a significant political legacy.

tottenhamWC

FF43 said:

I suspect this is correct. We don't have to agree with her, if so.

https://twitter.com/AllieRenison/status/1072906058740523010

Edit I mean agree with the assertion that leaving in an orderly fashion is optional but leaving on 29th March isn't.

If a very dogmatic approach leads to no deal, it will be quite impressive - at least in historical terms - that the two most recent conservative PMs will likely be viewed (fairly or unfairly) as two of the worst and least successful Prime Ministers of all time - nice work....

ydoethur

SquareRoot said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1073119427464437760

I heard him after the vote.. He is another piece of work who thinks a lot more of himself that the rest of us. Soames is spot on.

I can't say how Rees Mogg came across last night. OGH bans people who use the C word.

Let's just say he's a pound shop Jeremy Corbyn and leave it at that.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1073124592523321344

Alistair

Hey, this is weird, wage growth suddenly stagnated in 2016.

Did anything happen back then?

https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1072744754096549888?s=19

Donny43

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Donny43 said:

Scott_P said:

Donny43 said:

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

If it doesn't have Commons support, May can revoke Article 50 to avoid it.

Annnnnnnnd we're back...

Not without passing primary legislation, as I proved last night.

But that misses the point, anyway. You can't "rule out no deal", you can only replace it with either passing a deal or overturning the 2016 result.

You proved nothing of the sort. Like so many others, you read section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which repeals the 1972 Act with effect 29 March 2019.

But you didn't read section 25, which says section 1 is not in force, and requires secondary legislation to bring into force.

Given the low hurdle for bringing it into force, the ECJ isn't going to accept revocation with it on the statute books.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1073125272440987648

edmundintokyo

FF43 said:

I suspect this is correct. We don't have to agree with her, if so.

https://twitter.com/AllieRenison/status/1072906058740523010

Edit I mean agree with the assertion that leaving in an orderly fashion is optional but leaving on 29th March isn't.

The duty to Brexit thing is a nice story. An alternative way of interpreting what she's doing is that she wants to carry on being PM for as long as possible, and everything else is she's doing is optimized for that.

Can anyone think of an objective reason to believe in the "duty" theory over the "wants to be PM" theory?

Nigelb

Sandpit said:

Donny43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116524699967488

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1073116729038045184

They won't be able to "rule out no deal"...

No deal is already legislated for in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, any deal or other option that changes that status quo needs to be legislated for between now and 29th March.

A single vote in the Commons can’t stop no deal, no matter how much those wishing that outcome think it can. I’m not even sure that most of the MPs have yet realised they’re not going to get a single day off in Q1 next year. There’s going to be a *lot* of bills to pass.

As I asked before, though, might it be possible for a PM to revoke A50 pre March 29, and Parliament to legislate afterwards ?

Jonathan

May seems determined to play the most dangerous of games. With no majority for her deal, instead of finding common ground with others, she will look for technical fudge in the EU and delay the vote to a point where she will claim that there is no alternative to back her deal.

She wants to force her medicine down the neck of the Commons and the country. She is so convinced that she alone is right she will not stop or work with others. The Tories should have got rid of her when they had the chance.

IanB2

SquareRoot said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1073119427464437760

I heard him after the vote.. He is another piece of work who thinks a lot more of himself that the rest of us. Soames is spot on.

The one silver lining is that the ERG has comprehensively trashed its own reputation. To think it isn't so long that there was talk of the wee smog being favourite as next PM.

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1073124592523321344

Corbyn "present but not involved"?