Easy to see why Labour voters would be attracted to TIGers - revulsion at antisemitism and misogyny and the bullying of Corbynista trolls. Easy to see the appeal of the TIGers to Remainers although less easy to see why the TIGers would appeal rather when the LibDems dont.
Less easy to see any coherent policy platform, party structure or, for all the talk, what exactly what they mean by “a new way of doing things”. It just seems like an exercise in protest politics to me. Whatever appeal that may have, it can only be short term.
Is Ian Dunt never not angry? Most Tories seem pretty happy today. I guess they're not the right people.
I am content with these developments. In some circumstances I could support TIGs but while brexit is the main cause of the conservative defections, the full on attack on Corbyn, his anti semitism and his hard left inner circle, is likely to damage labour and especially his group far more
I had you down a "PB Tory most likely to join the Tiggers".
Me too. If they're doing what he likes, why won't he sign up?
I will not join a remain only group but depending on how brexit moves forward and policy detail from them I could be interested. I would join if ERG took us to no deal
I don't think Tigger is a serious name for a party! It sounds like something out of whinny the poo.
Something more like the British European Peoples party would be better!
I am more with the independents anyway than the Tories at the moment. I definitely don't like Corbyn. I can see NO Deal Brexit happening under the Tories and the damage it will do to the economy gathering pace.
Their campaign slogan would be "The wonderful thing about Tiggers, is that Tiggers are wonderful things."
Come to think of it, it's just as well they don't call themselves New Independent Group.
Until after the next election, when Dr Sarah Wollaston is singing
"But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers Is I'm the only one...."
Easy to see why Labour voters would be attracted to TIGers - revulsion at antisemitism and misogyny and the bullying of Corbynista trolls. Easy to see the appeal of the TIGers to Remainers although less easy to see why the TIGers would appeal rather when the LibDems dont.
Less easy to see any coherent policy platform, party structure or, for all the talk, what exactly what they mean by “a new way of doing things”. It just seems like an exercise in protest politics to me. Whatever appeal that may have, it can only be short term.
Libdems blew their protest potential,when they became coalition partners.
I think they would do well to ape Labour and vote at conference, and I also think some sort of tie up with the Libdems would be of benefit. There is still a huge infrastructure associated with the Libdems, and an infusions of protest and talent may be just what they need.
Easy to see why Labour voters would be attracted to TIGers - revulsion at antisemitism and misogyny and the bullying of Corbynista trolls. Easy to see the appeal of the TIGers to Remainers although less easy to see why the TIGers would appeal rather when the LibDems dont.
Less easy to see any coherent policy platform, party structure or, for all the talk, what exactly what they mean by “a new way of doing things”. It just seems like an exercise in protest politics to me. Whatever appeal that may have, it can only be short term.
Where does this new venture leave Corbynites who thought he was a Remainer? Were they really Blairites who liked to show off their hard left pretentions all along?
Further to the comments about the Tiggers having a plan: there is no doubt that a lot of discussions have taken place over the last few months. Remember the time when Vince Cable missed an important vote and revealed that he had been in an important meeting about the Parliamentary estate? My understanding is that these discussions have included targeting certain constituencies which have Brexit supporting Conservative MPs and specifically reserving a number of Lib Dem target seats. No doubt this will become apparent in the next few weeks.
Why should anyone be surprised by that? She is our problem, our citizen, radicalised in our country. Why the hell should Bangladesh be expected to take responsibility for her? Javid should stop this idiocy now and reinstate her citizenship. Then she should be allowed back into the UK and dealt with properly under our law.
Why should anyone be surprised by that? She is our problem, our citizen, radicalised in our country. Why the hell should Bangladesh be expected to take responsibility for her? Javid should stop this idiocy now and reinstate her citizenship. Then she should be allowed back into the UK and dealt with properly under our law.
Quite right. As usual, the voice of intelligence and reason from the thinking man's right-winger.
I don't think we'll ever know what plan B is because TMs deal will go through. It goes through partly because of the risk of 'no deal'. If I am wrong - usually am - we won't know what plan B is until after the 59th minute of the 11th hour, at which point TM will tell us. No-one will know till then.
You might usually be wrong (aren't we all) but in this case I think you are right on both points. Her deal is likely to going through and Plan B will only be known on the off chance that it doesn't.
The plan that I expect to be unveiled in that event - to much gnashing of teeth which will be difficult to hear due to the howls of anguish and derision - is a snap general election.
Which would not be great for the Tiggers. Or would it? I guess it depends.
Didn't Newport vote to Leave? Hardly seems like it is fertile territory for the Tiggers?
Newport West est. 54% Leave - basically in line with the country. Not the most fertile ground but the YouGov polling showed 11% of Leavers supporting TIG.
Just to go back to some posts I did on Monday. I'm pretty sure we can agree no one is talking about Honda anymore!
I have a feeling families in Swindon probably are...Robert Buckland and Justin Tomlinson are going to be lucky to keep their seats.
Could well be. Whether it's fair to get blamed or not is somethi g else but let's not forget the 27% swing that saw the lds take Redcar when the steel plant was first shuttered
Is Ian Dunt never not angry? Most Tories seem pretty happy today. I guess they're not the right people.
I am content with these developments. In some circumstances I could support TIGs but while brexit is the main cause of the conservative defections, the full on attack on Corbyn, his anti semitism and his hard left inner circle, is likely to damage labour and especially his group far more
I had you down a "PB Tory most likely to join the Tiggers".
Me too. If they're doing what he likes, why won't he sign up?
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
There should be a new law that ministers need to run all their knee-jerk initiatives past the pb massive so we can point out any obvious flaws. Perhaps it could be an amendment to Theresa May's deal: everything else is.
Why should anyone be surprised by that? She is our problem, our citizen, radicalised in our country. Why the hell should Bangladesh be expected to take responsibility for her? Javid should stop this idiocy now and reinstate her citizenship. Then she should be allowed back into the UK and dealt with properly under our law.
Quite right. As usual, the voice of intelligence and reason from the thinking man's right-winger.
Yes, it's so intelligent and reasonable to put the country in even greater danger than it's already in. Bravo!
A propros of nothing in particular, I'm on the Metrolink home. The driver has just interrupted the journey to announce his hope that we all had a good day at work, rejoice at the fact that it's now light for the journey home, and enthuse about the weather for the weekend, all in a comedy Mancunian accent. Has cheered me up tremendously.
They will need a miracle. The Windies should be something like 380. England's inability to take wickets in the middle overs is the one vulnerability of a very good side.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
There is a major local issue in Newport West that will attract some single issue candidates.
It is a trap for all candidates, not just the tiggers.
The Welsh Govt has for what seems like a lifetime been ruminating on a 1.4 billion upgrade to the M4 Brynglas Tunnel just west of Newport.
The tunnel has huge business cheerleaders (WelshOwl is in favour), and has vigorous local opponents on environmental and financial grounds (I'm against it).
It was said that Carwyn had decided to push ahead despite opposition and an announcement was finally expected in Dec 2018. When Mark Drakeford took over, I think it was pushed back for more review.
Basically, like an extra terminal for Heathrow, it is a difficult issue to dodge locally, and whatever you choose will lose you a tonne of votes.
< Yes but she did say to avoid a no deal it is the deal or remain.
It is the first time I have heard her actually say an option is to stay in the European Union
Right, but she's been very clear that her policy is to leave the EU on March 29th. She'd prefer to do so with a deal, but she's never said she won't leave without one if MPs continue to refuse to vote for a deal - and she still hasn't. She's used no Brexit as an alternative before.
I don't know that she would prefer to leave with no deal over remain, but I'm sure she thinks that that is the right thing to do, despite the potential consequences, in order to uphold the referendum vote, and that she would reluctantly do so if she could. But I'm not sure she believes that she could actually have the country leave without a deal without a parliamentary coup against her, or the Tory party fracturing, or both, or worse. I doubt many members of the Defence Staff are ardent Remainers, but I suspect that they are very firmly against a catastrophic no deal exit.
The relevant parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, still, unless legislation.gov.uk is not up to date on the matter, have not been commenced. I would have thought that if May really wanted to force a choice between deal or no-deal, she would have commenced the Act so that it really is the law of the land that the UK leaves the European Union on March 29th. With the EUWA uncommenced, it is not.
We have most likely run out of Parliamentary time now without an A50 extension to either accept and enact the WA (whether amended or not) or legislate to try and mitigate a no-deal exit. I think May believes that she can get an A50 extension to enact the WA or legislate for a second refendum (I'm not so sure she could get either myself) but not to buy more time for mitigation. As it stands, until the EUWA is commenced, the only options that exist right now are unmitigated crash out or remain. It is in May's power to remove remain as an option by commencing the Act. That she has not yet done so is very significant I feel.
The SDP defectors made a serious miscalculation back in 1981 by failing to resign their seats to force by elections at a time the new party enjoyed great momentum and was surging in the polls. They also failed to contest the 1981 Local Elections. It is likely that most of the defectors would have retained their seats and been much better placed to win again in 1983. A late defector - Bruce Douglas-Mann - insisted on resubmitting himself to his electors in Mitcham & Morden, but his campaign was effectively torpedoed by the Falklands Conflict in May 1982. Had it not been for that sudden crisis, he almost certainly would have won. Success in such by elections would also boost the party's claim for reasonable campaign coverage by the Broadcasters - and potential inclusion in Debates etc.However, the original 7 Labour MPs who defected on Monday appeared to indicate they had no intention of recontesting their seats next time.
I think that the situation is rather different today compared to the 1980s. For starters the Government has no overall majority. As a grouping of eleven and rising they have more influence as MPs in a hung parliament than they would have contesting local by-elections. I think at least two of the Labour defectors face very big mountains to climb in terms of winning the seat such as Liverpool Wavertree or Nottingham East. So strategically why would an MP give up their seat for a by-election which might strengthen the Man (Corbyn) that they say is unfit to be PM?
There is a major local issue in Newport West that will attract some single issue candidates.
It is a trap for all candidates, not just the tiggers.
The Welsh Govt has for what seems like a lifetime been ruminating on a 1.4 billion upgrade to the M4 Brynglas Tunnel just west of Newport.
The tunnel has huge business cheerleaders (WelshOwl is in favour), and has vigorous local opponents on environmental and financial grounds (I'm against it).
It was said that Carwyn had decided to push ahead despite opposition and an announcement was finally expected in Dec 2018. When Mark Drakeford took over, I think it was pushed back for more review.
Basically, like an extra terminal for Heathrow, it is a difficult issue to dodge locally, and whatever you choose will lose you a tonne of votes.
Interesting background. Those bloody tunnels have been a constant source of traffic jams since the Second Severn Crossing opened in about 1995, they should have fixed them at the same time - two decades ago!
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Zero, if you are safely sat in the UK never planning to return to Bangladeshi why would you.
It really doesn't look good for Sajid once you get away from the mob. He seems to have made assumption regarding Dual Citizenship options without checking them and has shown that it is (in theory) possible to kick out any Irish grandchild or Jew without appeal.
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
Slightly creepy website which, each type you refresh the page, creates a photo of someone who doesn't exist and never has existed using composite images.
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
Typical Tories; even when they get what they want, they aren't happy.
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
The Bangladesh government are not happy. She is not their citizen and won't be getting it they have confirmed. What's more the heard about it off TV!
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
Funny
How do you know they really are Tories>?
I expect they are ukippers. To be fair I would have campaigned for Anna before today. We need a broad church party
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Ah, but that only applies where the father or mother through whom the child has citizenship by descent is themselves a citizen by descent only.
I've not really been following it closely, but is the mother perhaps a citizen by birth rather than descent? Were that the case, the registration bit doesn't apply.
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
Funny
How do you know they really are Tories>?
I expect they are ukippers. To be fair I would have campaigned for Anna before today. We need a broad church party
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
The first paragraph is talking about cases where the Mother or Father are only citizens by descent isn’t it?
On topic but some light relief. The funniest comments I have seen this afternoon are from lots of irate Tories on social media saying the local party in Broxtowe should deselect Soubry. I am not sure they quite get this defection thing yet.
Funny
How do you know they really are Tories>?
I expect they are ukippers. To be fair I would have campaigned for Anna before today. We need a broad church party
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Reportedly both her parents are from Bangladesh, and therefore not Bangladeshi citizens "by descent only". Unless that's incorrect, what you've quoted is irrelevant.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Given that Bangladesh clearly don't want her, I think we say that even if they had, any record of that will have been "lost"...
(I've been to Bangladesh plenty of times - I'm not unfairly maligning them!)
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Ah, but that only applies where the father or mother through whom the child has citizenship by descent is themselves a citizen by descent only.
I've not really been following it closely, but is the mother perhaps a citizen by birth rather than descent? Were that the case, the registration bit doesn't apply.
Surely the issue here is that we are making assumptions again which may or may not be right. Given that both parents are in the UK is it not possible that they had UK citizenship at the time of Shamima's birth and had given up their Bangladesh citizenship.
I think just about the only thing we can say is that it seems the assumption that Shamima has active dual citizenship may not be correct which means Sajid may have made her stateless (which isn't permitted) and even if he hasn't the logic used is rather scary for a lot of people.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Reportedly both her parents are from Bangladesh, and therefore not Bangladeshi citizens "by descent only". Unless that's incorrect, what you've quoted is irrelevant.
That’s how I read it too, though I must say I don’t see why they should have to take her.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Reportedly both her parents are from Bangladesh, and therefore not Bangladeshi citizens "by descent only". Unless that's incorrect, what you've quoted is irrelevant.
That’s how I read it too, though I must say I don’t see why they should have to take her.
If our action is legal then they may not have a choice, which is one reason they would be understandably annoyed.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
The Bangladesh government are not happy. She is not their citizen and won't be getting it they have confirmed. What's more the heard about it off TV!
To be fair, so did I. The chip shop telly was showing Sky News.
Also Bangladesh is abroad, like Germany and China which Javid's Cabinet colleagues are also having trouble with.
Slightly creepy website which, each type you refresh the page, creates a photo of someone who doesn't exist and never has existed using composite images.
I'm sure I posted a link to it on Monday. Now I know how it works it's less scary than it could be it uses composites to combine real photos into fake people so while the photos are good, it doesn't seem to be able to create a second photo of the same "person" in a different position.
< Yes but she did say to avoid a no deal it is the deal or remain.
It is the first time I have heard her actually say an option is to stay in the European Union
Right, but she's been very clear that her policy is to leave the EU on March 29th. She'd prefer to do so with a deal, but she's never said she won't leave without one if MPs continue to refuse to vote for a deal - and she still hasn't. She's used no Brexit as an alternative before.
I don't know that she would prefer to leave with no deal over remain, but I'm sure she thinks that that is the right thing to do, despite the potential consequences, in order to uphold the referendum vote, and that she would reluctantly do so if she could. But I'm not sure she believes that she could actually have the country leave without a deal without a parliamentary coup against her, or the Tory party fracturing, or both, or worse...
I suppose my view is that Theresa May has no intention of doing anything other than passing her deal, and I think she will accept the no deal default in preference to revoking article 50.
What she has been telling MPs who refuse to vote for her deal is that if they want to avoid no deal they have to do the dirty work themselves - she isn't going to do it so that they can hide behind her from the anger of Leave voters denied Brexit.
MPs who believe as Big_G does that she will avoid no deal at the last moment will, I think, be grievously disappointed. They have to organise that for themselves. Perhaps TIG makes this more likely by providing a pole of organisation independent from May or Corbyn. Time, though, is running short.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Reportedly both her parents are from Bangladesh, and therefore not Bangladeshi citizens "by descent only". Unless that's incorrect, what you've quoted is irrelevant.
That’s how I read it too, though I must say I don’t see why they should have to take her.
So are her parents British or Bangladeshi? They cannot be both.
The most 3 most impressive Tory MPs by a distance and by the sound of it support is tumbling in. Even Polly T sounds like she's being won over.
Admittedly the new party couldn't believe their luck when Hatton and Galloway rejoined Labour and the BBC were not unhelpful when they went full Derby and Joan with their vox pops to show the party the modern Tory women had just left
I remember seeing Derek Hatton on TV in 1992 and he said that people might as well vote Tory than support Labour under Kinnock! Funny the things a person can remember! But it undermines his comments that he has unequivocally supported Labour for 34 years. He has not and it is a shame I cannot remember the precise TV program he articulated this belief. Mind you if he said that about Kinnock I wonder what indiscretions he made about Blair?
A propros of nothing in particular, I'm on the Metrolink home. The driver has just interrupted the journey to announce his hope that we all had a good day at work, rejoice at the fact that it's now light for the journey home, and enthuse about the weather for the weekend, all in a comedy Mancunian accent. Has cheered me up tremendously.
That's interesting, but according to the article his basis for saying she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship is that she's never applied for it.
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says: "Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
You miss out a very important piece of that act.
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
Reportedly both her parents are from Bangladesh, and therefore not Bangladeshi citizens "by descent only". Unless that's incorrect, what you've quoted is irrelevant.
That’s how I read it too, though I must say I don’t see why they should have to take her.
So are her parents British or Bangladeshi? They cannot be both.
I remember seeing Derek Hatton on TV in 1992 and he said that people might as well vote Tory than support Labour under Kinnock! Funny the things a person can remember! But it undermines his comments that he has unequivocally supported Labour for 34 years. He has not and it is a shame I cannot remember the precise TV program he articulated this belief. Mind you if he said that about Kinnock I wonder what indiscretions he made about Blair?
Is that a recent photograph of Hatton? He looks remarkably youthful. According to Wikipedia he is 71 years of age.
I remember seeing Derek Hatton on TV in 1992 and he said that people might as well vote Tory than support Labour under Kinnock! Funny the things a person can remember! But it undermines his comments that he has unequivocally supported Labour for 34 years. He has not and it is a shame I cannot remember the precise TV program he articulated this belief. Mind you if he said that about Kinnock I wonder what indiscretions he made about Blair?
Is that a recent photograph of Hatton? He looks remarkably youthful. According to Wikipedia he is 71 years of age.
A propros of nothing in particular, I'm on the Metrolink home. The driver has just interrupted the journey to announce his hope that we all had a good day at work, rejoice at the fact that it's now light for the journey home, and enthuse about the weather for the weekend, all in a comedy Mancunian accent. Has cheered me up tremendously.
Two prominent Roman Catholic Church cardinals have urged an end of what they call "the plague of the homosexual agenda", telling bishops to break their complicity over cases of sexual abuse.
In an open letter, Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller say the Church has wrongly blamed the abuse of power by clergy as the main cause of the scandals.
Comments
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1097272428395417600
Less easy to see any coherent policy platform, party structure or, for all the talk, what exactly what they mean by “a new way of doing things”. It just seems like an exercise in protest politics to me. Whatever appeal that may have, it can only be short term.
I think they would do well to ape Labour and vote at conference, and I also think some sort of tie up with the Libdems would be of benefit. There is still a huge infrastructure associated with the Libdems, and an infusions of protest and talent may be just what they need.
Worth reading back the thread from last night.
tick
tock
tick
tock
The plan that I expect to be unveiled in that event - to much gnashing of teeth which will be difficult to hear due to the howls of anguish and derision - is a snap general election.
Which would not be great for the Tiggers. Or would it? I guess it depends.
https://twitter.com/hhesterm/status/1098204224175984641
Whereas the relevant statute, cited in this SIAC decision - http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf - says:
"Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the
commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by
descent if his father or mother is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time
of his birth"
Nothing about having to apply for citizenship.
On the other hand, a subsequent presidential order says that in case of doubt the Bangladeshi government's decision is final, so if they stick to that line it may be awkward for Javid.
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1098275570700505095
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/defector-mp-heidi-allen-says-she-wants-to-destroy-the-tory-party-she-just-quit_uk_5c6d8a8de4b0e37a1ed3ffce?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
"Provided that if the father or mother of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless –
(a) that person’s birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country"
So if the parents did not register the birth at the Bangladeshi Consulate or Mission then the person is NOT a Bangladeshi citizen.
Any odds on the parents having registered the birth?
"You no longer represent the values of the Labour Party.
You are a fraud who needs to join the Funny Tinge party as soon as possible.
Your behaviour towards Labour and Jeremy Corbyn has been a disgrace and your credibility only now exists with the Israeli apologists.
Leave now"
Be careful for what you wish for.
It is a trap for all candidates, not just the tiggers.
The Welsh Govt has for what seems like a lifetime been ruminating on a 1.4 billion upgrade to the M4 Brynglas Tunnel just west of Newport.
The tunnel has huge business cheerleaders (WelshOwl is in favour), and has vigorous local opponents on environmental and financial grounds (I'm against it).
It was said that Carwyn had decided to push ahead despite opposition and an announcement was finally expected in Dec 2018. When Mark Drakeford took over, I think it was pushed back for more review.
Basically, like an extra terminal for Heathrow, it is a difficult issue to dodge locally, and whatever you choose will lose you a tonne of votes.
The relevant parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, still, unless legislation.gov.uk is not up to date on the matter, have not been commenced. I would have thought that if May really wanted to force a choice between deal or no-deal, she would have commenced the Act so that it really is the law of the land that the UK leaves the European Union on March 29th. With the EUWA uncommenced, it is not.
We have most likely run out of Parliamentary time now without an A50 extension to either accept and enact the WA (whether amended or not) or legislate to try and mitigate a no-deal exit. I think May believes that she can get an A50 extension to enact the WA or legislate for a second refendum (I'm not so sure she could get either myself) but not to buy more time for mitigation. As it stands, until the EUWA is commenced, the only options that exist right now are unmitigated crash out or remain. It is in May's power to remove remain as an option by commencing the Act. That she has not yet done so is very significant I feel.
It really doesn't look good for Sajid once you get away from the mob. He seems to have made assumption regarding Dual Citizenship options without checking them and has shown that it is (in theory) possible to kick out any Irish grandchild or Jew without appeal.
Slightly creepy website which, each type you refresh the page, creates a photo of someone who doesn't exist and never has existed using composite images.
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com
What's more the heard about it off TV!
I've not really been following it closely, but is the mother perhaps a citizen by birth rather than descent? Were that the case, the registration bit doesn't apply.
(I've been to Bangladesh plenty of times - I'm not unfairly maligning them!)
https://twitter.com/LivEchonews/status/1098281989562646528
I think just about the only thing we can say is that it seems the assumption that Shamima has active dual citizenship may not be correct which means Sajid may have made her stateless (which isn't permitted) and even if he hasn't the logic used is rather scary for a lot of people.
'first as tragedy, then as farce'
Also Bangladesh is abroad, like Germany and China which Javid's Cabinet colleagues are also having trouble with.
What she has been telling MPs who refuse to vote for her deal is that if they want to avoid no deal they have to do the dirty work themselves - she isn't going to do it so that they can hide behind her from the anger of Leave voters denied Brexit.
MPs who believe as Big_G does that she will avoid no deal at the last moment will, I think, be grievously disappointed. They have to organise that for themselves. Perhaps TIG makes this more likely by providing a pole of organisation independent from May or Corbyn. Time, though, is running short.
Brexit hour in 892 and three quarter hours.
I wonder if Galloway can beat the record when he gets readmitted... (as he surely will be)
Admittedly the new party couldn't believe their luck when Hatton and Galloway rejoined Labour and the BBC were not unhelpful when they went full Derby and Joan with their vox pops to show the party the modern Tory women had just left
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/derek-hatton-ill-never-retire-3495056
Two prominent Roman Catholic Church cardinals have urged an end of what they call "the plague of the homosexual agenda", telling bishops to break their complicity over cases of sexual abuse.
In an open letter, Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller say the Church has wrongly blamed the abuse of power by clergy as the main cause of the scandals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47302817