Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
As I said on the previous thread, in my view stripping people of citizenship - which is only possible for dual citizens - creates two classes of British citizen (permanent and contingent) and so aids those who wish to sow division. But certainly, allowing a politician to wield this power over people convicted of no crime without any kind of effective judicial oversight is insane. It is a power that is asking to be abused; I would be surprised if it hasn't been yet and I am certain that it will be in the future.
But the opposite to your argument is true as well. People being allowed dual citizenship creates two classes of citizens and sows division.
I have read here multiple times, not from you I hasten to add, from dual citizens that they will use their non-British citizenship to gain some advantage that sole British citizens would not be eligible for. Usually accompanied by the sucker emoji.
Can you cite these multiple times, particularly when the sucker emoji was used.
EU sources expressed frustration that they were having to “re-educate” Cox, who is new to the talks, about the lack of realism in the central demands made by May.
That irritation has been shared in Berlin. Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, said new “realistic suggestions” were needed from Downing Street to allow the negotiations to progress.
“There is no point in abstractly demanding changes or to make demands, which are completely unacceptable for us,” Roth said. “There can be no limit to the backstop, there can’t be an automatic expiration of the backstop.
“Right now I do not see the necessary willingness to budge on the part of the British and this doesn’t make things easier because time is running out.”
EU sources said Barnier and his deputy, Sabine Weyand, had been “forensic” in their dismantling of the Malthouse compromise on Monday. Barnier told Barclay that suspending EU law on the border was not a viable solution to the problem. Weyand later privately lamented that the EU was having to repeat arguments to Cox first made in August 2017.
You could write that the other way round. We are tired of explaining why the numptees keep insisting on the same undeliverable WA.
The fact that both sides are intransigent means both are experiencing the same frustrations. It shows both parties in the same light.
With the minor detail that No Deal would leave rEU’s economy only mildly fucked while ours, fittingly, would be royally fucked.
EU sources expressed frustration that they were having to “re-educate” Cox, who is new to the talks, about the lack of realism in the central demands made by May.
That irritation has been shared in Berlin. Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, said new “realistic suggestions” were needed from Downing Street to allow the negotiations to progress.
“There is no point in abstractly demanding changes or to make demands, which are completely unacceptable for us,” Roth said. “There can be no limit to the backstop, there can’t be an automatic expiration of the backstop.
“Right now I do not see the necessary willingness to budge on the part of the British and this doesn’t make things easier because time is running out.”
EU sources said Barnier and his deputy, Sabine Weyand, had been “forensic” in their dismantling of the Malthouse compromise on Monday. Barnier told Barclay that suspending EU law on the border was not a viable solution to the problem. Weyand later privately lamented that the EU was having to repeat arguments to Cox first made in August 2017.
Boohoo to them. They were so bloody pleased at beating us in the negotiations to the point they never cared if it did be agreed or not (And no, May saying it would is not convincing, they are not dumb enough to think it would go through just because May said so)
Quite - if only they were as good at parliamentary arithmetic as they are at leaking after talks...
Well they are so grumpy because we hold all the cards in these negotiations.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
As I said on the previous thread, in my view stripping people of citizenship - which is only possible for dual citizens - creates two classes of British citizen (permanent and contingent) and so aids those who wish to sow division. But certainly, allowing a politician to wield this power over people convicted of no crime without any kind of effective judicial oversight is insane. It is a power that is asking to be abused; I would be surprised if it hasn't been yet and I am certain that it will be in the future.
But the opposite to your argument is true as well. People being allowed dual citizenship creates two classes of citizens and sows division.
I have read here multiple times, not from you I hasten to add, from dual citizens that they will use their non-British citizenship to gain some advantage that sole British citizens would not be eligible for. Usually accompanied by the sucker emoji.
Not everyone with dual citizenship has actively sought it - it can be via parents or by virtue of birth. You don't need to have a passport. Many British citizens, mostly from minority communities, face this threat, and there will be millions more once EU citizens are forced to become British too to stay here. We live in an interconnected world, people move around for work, kids are born overseas. This shouldn't give a politician on the make the right to throw you out of the only country you know and separate you from your family. Personally I only have British citizenship, so Javid won't be able to chuck me out of the country, but nor am I able to escape Brexit.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
As I said on the previous thread, in my view stripping people of citizenship - which is only possible for dual citizens - creates two classes of British citizen (permanent and contingent) and so aids those who wish to sow division. But certainly, allowing a politician to wield this power over people convicted of no crime without any kind of effective judicial oversight is insane. It is a power that is asking to be abused; I would be surprised if it hasn't been yet and I am certain that it will be in the future.
But the opposite to your argument is true as well. People being allowed dual citizenship creates two classes of citizens and sows division.
I have read here multiple times, not from you I hasten to add, from dual citizens that they will use their non-British citizenship to gain some advantage that sole British citizens would not be eligible for. Usually accompanied by the sucker emoji.
Can you cite these multiple times, particularly when the sucker emoji was used.
I could, but one of the people that talk about their dual citizenship gets upset when other posters question them about it and it seems to upset them, so I will not but I am sure most posters understand the point I am making.
I could, but one of the people that talk about their dual citizenship gets upset when other posters question them about it and it seems to upset them, so I will not but I am sure most posters understand the point I am making.
So we'll file that under fake news from you until you post otherwise.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
What are the ways they could use it that you would agree with?
EU sources expressed frustration that they were having to “re-educate” Cox, who is new to the talks, about the lack of realism in the central demands made by May.
That irritation has been shared in Berlin. Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, said new “realistic suggestions” were needed from Downing Street to allow the negotiations to progress.
“There is no point in abstractly demanding changes or to make demands, which are completely unacceptable for us,” Roth said. “There can be no limit to the backstop, there can’t be an automatic expiration of the backstop.
“Right now I do not see the necessary willingness to budge on the part of the British and this doesn’t make things easier because time is running out.”
EU sources said Barnier and his deputy, Sabine Weyand, had been “forensic” in their dismantling of the Malthouse compromise on Monday. Barnier told Barclay that suspending EU law on the border was not a viable solution to the problem. Weyand later privately lamented that the EU was having to repeat arguments to Cox first made in August 2017.
Boohoo to them. They were so bloody pleased at beating us in the negotiations to the point they never cared if it did be agreed or not (And no, May saying it would is not convincing, they are not dumb enough to think it would go through just because May said so)
Quite - if only they were as good at parliamentary arithmetic as they are at leaking after talks...
Well they are so grumpy because we hold all the cards in these negotiations.
And the German car industry will be on the phone at any minute telling them to give us a good deal.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
As I said on the previous thread, in my view stripping people of citizenship - which is only possible for dual citizens - creates two classes of British citizen (permanent and contingent) and so aids those who wish to sow division. But certainly, allowing a politician to wield this power over people convicted of no crime without any kind of effective judicial oversight is insane. It is a power that is asking to be abused; I would be surprised if it hasn't been yet and I am certain that it will be in the future.
But the opposite to your argument is true as well. People being allowed dual citizenship creates two classes of citizens and sows division.
I have read here multiple times, not from you I hasten to add, from dual citizens that they will use their non-British citizenship to gain some advantage that sole British citizens would not be eligible for. Usually accompanied by the sucker emoji.
Not everyone with dual citizenship has actively sought it - it can be via parents or by virtue of birth. You don't need to have a passport. Many British citizens, mostly from minority communities, face this threat, and there will be millions more once EU citizens are forced to become British too to stay here. We live in an interconnected world, people move around for work, kids are born overseas. This shouldn't give a politician on the make the right to throw you out of the only country you know and separate you from your family. Personally I only have British citizenship, so Javid won't be able to chuck me out of the country, but nor am I able to escape Brexit.
Indeed. Was in Oz in late 2017, where the big political scandal was how many elected representatives had been discovered to be dual citizens (not allowed in Parliament). The vast majority of whom were blissfully unaware of,the fact.
I don’t see that much evidence that ‘Blairism’ is that much in demand amongst the public.
Faced with the ERG and the Corbynistas, some calm rational and competent politics is very much in demand. Just so long as you don't attach Blair's name to it.
I don’t think it’s just Blair’s name that’s the problem. There quite a few beliefs among those who themselves centrists - e.g. support for academies and free schools, or foreign interventionism - that don’t seem to be that much popular among the public.
Although Academies were brought in by Blair/Blunkett, they were (a) basically a way of tarting up the Tories’ City Technology Colleges in a New Labour image (b) under far more local authority control with things like admissions and (c) a HUGELY minority sport (a couple of hundred were created in ten years under Labour.. followed by three THOUSAND in the next three years under Cameron/Gove. And Free Schools are an entirely Tory construct.
I’m bang on target for the Tiggers, and although I wouldn’t crawl over broken glass to reverse it all now, it’s not something that’s been done in my name or at all attractive. In the Blunkett years it was a probably a handy tool to chuck in an extra school in a hurry where needed, not a near-compulsory exercise in turning heads in privatising school management.
EU sources expressed frustration that they were having to “re-educate” Cox, who is new to the talks, about the lack of realism in the central demands made by May.
That irritation has been shared in Berlin. Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, said new “realistic suggestions” were needed from Downing Street to allow the negotiations to progress.
“There is no point in abstractly demanding changes or to make demands, which are completely unacceptable for us,” Roth said. “There can be no limit to the backstop, there can’t be an automatic expiration of the backstop.
“Right now I do not see the necessary willingness to budge on the part of the British and this doesn’t make things easier because time is running out.”
EU sources said Barnier and his deputy, Sabine Weyand, had been “forensic” in their dismantling of the Malthouse compromise on Monday. Barnier told Barclay that suspending EU law on the border was not a viable solution to the problem. Weyand later privately lamented that the EU was having to repeat arguments to Cox first made in August 2017.
Boohoo to them. They were so bloody pleased at beating us in the negotiations to the point they never cared if it did be agreed or not (And no, May saying it would is not convincing, they are not dumb enough to think it would go through just because May said so)
Quite - if only they were as good at parliamentary arithmetic as they are at leaking after talks...
Well they are so grumpy because we hold all the cards in these negotiations.
And the German car industry will be on the phone at any minute telling them to give us a good deal.
... which will definitely be the easiest deal in human history.
Wollaston and Allen would be favourites, surely. Soubry is a one-off and hard to predict. Sandbach and, at a pinch, Grieve I could believe.
I did hear that Philip Lee might be a contender.
I'd go with Lee Allen and Sandbach. I think Soubry will go eventually from her closeness with Chuks. Grieve won't go anywhere. Should be double figure tiggers by weekend
Excellent. Perhaps the constant speculation some ones might in itself will encourage some who would otherwise remain to seriously consider their position - the Tiggers finally showing some balls will encourage everyone to ask those obviously on the outs, Tory and Labour, if they really are staying where they are.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
The first rule of Brexit is not to believe anything that comes out of Downing Street so I think talk of the deal passing is, shall we say, a little premature.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
What are the ways they could use it that you would agree with?
Just a suggestion: that the way to do both justice and compassion is to take every possible step to bring the baby back to the UK and to take no step (eg by helping the mother come to the UK) to prevent its mother facing justice from the jurisdiction she has ended up in.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
As I said on the previous thread, in my view stripping people of citizenship - which is only possible for dual citizens - creates two classes of British citizen (permanent and contingent) and so aids those who wish to sow division. But certainly, allowing a politician to wield this power over people convicted of no crime without any kind of effective judicial oversight is insane. It is a power that is asking to be abused; I would be surprised if it hasn't been yet and I am certain that it will be in the future.
But the opposite to your argument is true as well. People being allowed dual citizenship creates two classes of citizens and sows division.
I have read here multiple times, not from you I hasten to add, from dual citizens that they will use their non-British citizenship to gain some advantage that sole British citizens would not be eligible for. Usually accompanied by the sucker emoji.
Not everyone with dual citizenship has actively sought it - it can be via parents or by virtue of birth. You don't need to have a passport. Many British citizens, mostly from minority communities, face this threat, and there will be millions more once EU citizens are forced to become British too to stay here. We live in an interconnected world, people move around for work, kids are born overseas. This shouldn't give a politician on the make the right to throw you out of the only country you know and separate you from your family. Personally I only have British citizenship, so Javid won't be able to chuck me out of the country, but nor am I able to escape Brexit.
Tough titty. Actions have consequences. All that matters is whether the law is being adhered to. Shamina Begum is entitled to nothing other than her legal rights.
Javid is simply desperate to appeal to the Tory base. Then again, he is a guy who likes Ayn Rand so this is probably just where he’s at politically.
The polls will probably show at least 60-70% of people agreeing with this decision. That isn't the Tory base.
And if they were honest, the other 30-40% wouldn't want her as a neighbour......
I have no time for Begum whatsoever, but if you give politicians the right to take away citizenship do not imagine they will always use it in ways you agree with.
What are the ways they could use it that you would agree with?
Just a suggestion: that the way to do both justice and compassion is to take every possible step to bring the baby back to the UK and to take no step (eg by helping the mother come to the UK) to prevent its mother facing justice from the jurisdiction she has ended up in.
And to ensure that Begum gets justice which will probably mean a prison sentence.
Excellent. Perhaps the constant speculation some ones might in itself will encourage some who would otherwise remain to seriously consider their position - the Tiggers finally showing some balls will encourage everyone to ask those obviously on the outs, Tory and Labour, if they really are staying where they are.
Yes. At some point the Ian Austins and Antoinette Sandbachs will start thinking “people who think like me have left; why am I still here?”. And after a while, staying in the party becomes identified with condoning anti-Semitism / being a hard Brexiter / whatever.
I twitted @MaxPB for not knowing how politics is funded, I teased @SeanT about not knowing the difference between the Government and Parliament, now I see all-around surprise that the Home Secretary can withdraw citizenship. Any more of this and I will set a written test...
Not sure any Tory will be resigning to join the Independent Group. Barring Brexit they don’t have much in common . A better fit might be a defection to the Lib Dems or simply sitting as an independent .
Saying Blair isn't in demand now is a bit like saying Harold Wilson wasn't in demand in 1997. Doesn't change the fact that Blair and Wilson are the only people to win elections for Labour since 1950.
Not sure any Tory will be resigning to join the Independent Group. Barring Brexit they don’t have much in common . A better fit might be a defection to the Lib Dems or simply sitting as an independent .
Which, for now, is all the Tiggers are though really, other than hatred of Brexit. But it does seem like it will be harder for the Tories given the Tiggers are no fans of Tory policies, some of which the Tory defectors will like at least. I'm a fan of the idea that the Tiggers just provide a casual group for people of all sides to defect to, then we see if Brexit happens or not, and how, and then we'll see what new party, or parties, are viable after that.
Ryan was deputy chair of the No to AV campaign. That’s going to make negotiations with the Lib Dems awkward if she joins TIG...
Why is that? I mean, while the LDs pushed for AV as better than FPTP (and I voted yes to AV myself) given the LDs prefer PR surely it should not be too hard feelings?
Wait, "over the coming months"? So does that mean May has conceded that she has no option now but to seek an A50 extension?
They *might* be talking about the future relationship[1]. The current agreement under discussion is the Withdrawal Agreement, a holding document designed to give UK more time to get ready to leave. The two are not the same. The WA covers the next eighteen months (or whatever), the Future Relationship covers the time after the WA. Perhaps the PM is moving the Malthouse thingy discussion from the WA (because it's far, far too late now) to the Future Relationship, where we have more time to discuss it.
Saying Blair isn't in demand now is a bit like saying Harold Wilson wasn't in demand in 1997. Doesn't change the fact that Blair and Wilson are the only people to win elections for Labour since 1950.
Labour has only had four election winners since 1900:
McDonald (and even he's debatable) Atlee Wilson Blair
With such a poor record maybe Labour was always doomed to be a flash in the pan (relatively speaking)
Perhaps in the end we're going to go back to out Whig/Liberal V Con/Tory roots?
Wait, "over the coming months"? So does that mean May has conceded that she has no option now but to seek an A50 extension?
I think the implication is as part of the future relationship, not the WA.
Hmm, but wouldn't that be asking MPs who rejected the WA to now vote for it on the promise that the FR might remove the parts of the WA that they found objectionable?
Well done Javid. I can only imagine the number of hand-wringing civil servants and human rights lawyers he has had to contend with to get this through.
This will command very broad public support. I expect that the minority who think droning would have been more appropriate is larger than the minority who think we should let her back into the country.
If Corbyn doesn’t back a second EU vote the 8 will soon multiply .
I've been constantly wrong about this, but it is the smart thing for him to do. Brexit really is one of those issues that, eventually, some MPs are going to defy any political tribe to vote the way they think they must, and if they are not permitted to will lash out. Many have suggested that while Corbyn is not keen on the EU he does not care a great deal about Brexit issues, and if that is true it is time for him to appear more enthusiastic about moving to the support a referendum stage of their policy.
What benefit is there to not doing so if the split becomes even more serious?
Well done Javid. I can only imagine the number of hand-wringing civil servants and human rights lawyers he has had to contend with to get this through.
This will command very broad public support.
Probably, but journalistic Twitter are almost universally outraged
Ryan was deputy chair of the No to AV campaign. That’s going to make negotiations with the Lib Dems awkward if she joins TIG...
The Lib Dems are gonna get swallowed up like the Libersls were by the SDP, they are yesterday's story
Maybe (and I’m a self-declared social democrat), but today’s Lib Dems are 70% Liberal, 15% SDP, 15% libertarian. I don’t think you could describe the SDP as swallowing up the Liberals in any sense.
So maybe 3 from Tories, 8 from Lab at least. Any of the LibDems phaps?
For now, what would be the point from a LD's perspective? It would be depressing if some new group became larger and more popular than them overnight, but even hard fought as they were they surely still have a better chance of re-election under their own brand, and the main policy of remain, remain and remain again is the same so no need to quit.
Got to love the irony of an unrepentant member of ISIS looking to use "all legal means".......
One can only assume that unlike murdering people in the most barbarous ways possible, ISIS doesn't teach its combatants the meaning of the word "irony"...
So maybe 3 from Tories, 8 from Lab at least. Any of the LibDems phaps?
Could maybe be a block of 20ish pretty soon.
Probably not, there are only 12 of them as it is and they probably want to stick together, while of course supporting the establishment of The Independent Group.
So maybe 3 from Tories, 8 from Lab at least. Any of the LibDems phaps?
Could maybe be a block of 20ish pretty soon.
Probably not, there are only 12 of them as it is and they probably want to stick together, while of course supporting the establishment of The Independent Group.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
So maybe 3 from Tories, 8 from Lab at least. Any of the LibDems phaps?
Could maybe be a block of 20ish pretty soon.
Probably not, there are only 12 of them as it is and they probably want to stick together, while of course supporting the establishment of The Independent Group.
The funny thing is these resignations make Corbyns Unicorn EU vote still on the table more likely to become reality . The 8 won’t support a no confidence vote as they’d likely have a quick end to their careers and don’t want him as PM anyway .
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .
Ryan was deputy chair of the No to AV campaign. That’s going to make negotiations with the Lib Dems awkward if she joins TIG...
The Lib Dems are gonna get swallowed up like the Libersls were by the SDP, they are yesterday's story
Maybe (and I’m a self-declared social democrat), but today’s Lib Dems are 70% Liberal, 15% SDP, 15% libertarian. I don’t think you could describe the SDP as swallowing up the Liberals in any sense.
Bring back Charlie Kennedy.
I'd say the liberals were maneuvered onto social democratic turf and are thus more sdp like in the current incarnation than Grimmond Liberals
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
I agree.
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
Ryan was deputy chair of the No to AV campaign. That’s going to make negotiations with the Lib Dems awkward if she joins TIG...
The Lib Dems are gonna get swallowed up like the Libersls were by the SDP, they are yesterday's story
Maybe (and I’m a self-declared social democrat), but today’s Lib Dems are 70% Liberal, 15% SDP, 15% libertarian. I don’t think you could describe the SDP as swallowing up the Liberals in any sense.
Bring back Charlie Kennedy.
The only party leaders I'd feel enthusiastic about voting for are Charlie Kennedy and John Smith. How different things might have been.
Javid on manoeuvres again prepared to trash the rule of law to ingratiate himself with the Tory faithful (and electors)
If he is using powers lawfully granted him by Act of Parliament (whether one thinks this is an appropriate use of them, or if he should not have those powers), how is he trashing the rule of law?
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
And our Immigration Tribunals are well known for overturning government decisions.....
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
The way it is reported it does seem awfully broad - how much justification does the Home Secretary need to provide for instance, other than, presumably, proving the target would not be left stateless? Could one appeal the reason for the judgement (though that would seem pointless in this case) or purely on some procedural or technical legal point?
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.
Comments
They can afford to be intransigent. We can’t.
I’m bang on target for the Tiggers, and although I wouldn’t crawl over broken glass to reverse it all now, it’s not something that’s been done in my name or at all attractive. In the Blunkett years it was a probably a handy tool to chuck in an extra school in a hurry where needed, not a near-compulsory exercise in turning heads in privatising school management.
Wollaston and Allen would be favourites, surely. Soubry is a one-off and hard to predict. Sandbach and, at a pinch, Grieve I could believe.
Is it enough for May’s deal to pass?
https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/1097941535067463682?s=21
Could have been used at any point over the previous 4 years.
And for many to come, I fear.
Should be double figure tiggers by weekend
I note the decision can be appealed, and presumably will be. If it is not lawful then we will soon find out I am sure.
Just a suggestion: that the way to do both justice and compassion is to take every possible step to bring the baby back to the UK and to take no step (eg by helping the mother come to the UK) to prevent its mother facing justice from the jurisdiction she has ended up in.
That said if Boles does go I think it might finally tip Gove into backing revocation.
Sounds like a firm of Lawyers!
Now, to see who you are *looks on wikipedia*....Chair of the Labour Friends of Israel. Oh dear, I can see the comments coming on twitter.
Exciting stuff
[1] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/framework-uk-eu-future-relationship
Could maybe be a block of 20ish pretty soon.
McDonald (and even he's debatable)
Atlee
Wilson
Blair
With such a poor record maybe Labour was always doomed to be a flash in the pan (relatively speaking)
Perhaps in the end we're going to go back to out Whig/Liberal V Con/Tory roots?
This will command very broad public support. I expect that the minority who think droning would have been more appropriate is larger than the minority who think we should let her back into the country.
What benefit is there to not doing so if the split becomes even more serious?
Bring back Charlie Kennedy.
By the end of the summer recess TIG will be at least the third largest Parliamentary grouping.
I suspect this is excellent politics but may be pretty dodgy law....
At this rate the DUP won’t be able to bring the government down even if May delivers a backstop in the WA. And Corbyns desperate attempts to avoid a second EU vote could hit the buffers as there’s little chance of getting an election .
If she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship then Javid might well have to resign in disgrace.
As I say I don't have a quarrel with the decision, but if Javid has erred in law in some fashion, well, that's that.