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.
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.
Can't they?
Nope. Dual citizenship is illegal for Bangladeshis over the age of 21. If you take the citizenship of another country you automatically lose your Bangladeshi citizenship.
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.
They might not have much choice, as it would then be impossible for them to revoke her citizenship without breaking international law. Which rather displays how our action is an abdication of the responsibility to deal with the mess one of our citizens has created.
I have zero sympathy for the woman herself ( the child is another matter) - but Javid’s action is wrong.
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
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.
Well indeed. It's a bit arrogant to think we should have the right to get rid of our citizens and other countries should be obliged to take 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?
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.
Wiki says the Father only came to England in 2007
I’m sorry that’s wrong, I was looking at Sharmeena Begum not Shamima.
Although The Sun says both Parents are from Bangladesh
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.
The offending tweet is from 2012. Couldn't they have looked at his old tweets before readmitting him? Or is it only after the magnificent seven defections that they think antisemitism is a no-no?
"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.
Why not? Dual citizenship is allowed.
If they were both born in Bangladesh but later immigrated here my understanding is that she also has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that is right then what the Home Secretary has done seems to be legally competent because he has reasonable cause to believe she is entitled to citizenship of another country. It is important to note it is not necessary for her to either have or have applied for that citizenship, that is not the test. Similarly, whether Bangladesh is willing to take her is not relevant. That is not the test either.
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.
The Liberals got 24% in Newport West in 1983, close to the 25% national average for the SDP Liberal Alliance, so this could be a good test for the TIG if this time the LDs stand down in their favour
"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.
Why not? Dual citizenship is allowed.
If they were both born in Bangladesh but later immigrated here my understanding is that she also has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that is right then what the Home Secretary has done seems to be legally competent because he has reasonable cause to believe she is entitled to citizenship of another country. It is important to note it is not necessary for her to either have or have applied for that citizenship, that is not the test. Similarly, whether Bangladesh is willing to take her is not relevant. That is not the test either.
Some very broad tests indeed. But if that is all the law requires then it's just a moral argument, and Javid won't worry about that element of the story (plus it will be for Hunt to deal with any annoyance from Bangladesh).
John Mann attacking Kevin Macquire in the HOC on anti semitism, and I am not going to repeat his allegation
Just watching it back now - he is not holding back. It was rather rambling and lacking focus - but it was still a powerful condemnation of Maguire's behaviour.
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.
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.
Why not? Dual citizenship is allowed.
If they were both born in Bangladesh but later immigrated here my understanding is that she also has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that is right then what the Home Secretary has done seems to be legally competent because he has reasonable cause to believe she is entitled to citizenship of another country. It is important to note it is not necessary for her to either have or have applied for that citizenship, that is not the test. Similarly, whether Bangladesh is willing to take her is not relevant. That is not the test either.
Some very broad tests indeed. But if that is all the law requires then it's just a moral argument, and Javid won't worry about that element of the story (plus it will be for Hunt to deal with any annoyance from Bangladesh).
I copy pasted the provision last night. He has to be satisfied that her presence her would be seriously prejudicial to the public good and that she is at least eligible for other citizenship. In the recent Court of Appeal decisions where these boxes are ticked the courts have not interfered. Indeed they have gone so far as to emphasise that citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights.
Her children may be a more complicated matter both in their own right and as EU citizens through their father. She will probably try to piggyback on the back of them and article 8 rights to family life etc but the authorities are not sympathetic to that where the criteria are met.
John Mann attacking Kevin Macquire in the HOC on anti semitism, and I am not going to repeat his allegation
The Mirror journalist ?
From Wikipedia (usual health warnings apply):
"Kevin Maguire may refer to:
Kevin Maguire (artist) (born 1960), American comic book penciller Kevin Maguire (ice hockey) (born 1963), former professional ice hockey forward and referee Kevin Maguire (figure skater) (born 1980), Canadian pair skater Kevin Maguire (journalist) (born 1961), British political journalist"
One deduces that it is unlikely to be the Canadian figure skater, for starters...
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.
He buys supplements from Alex Jones
You're all a day late to the party; this was yesterday's big topic on twitter. Especially among female posters, it seemed.
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.
Why not? Dual citizenship is allowed.
If they were both born in Bangladesh but later immigrated here my understanding is that she also has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that is right then what the Home Secretary has done seems to be legally competent because he has reasonable cause to believe she is entitled to citizenship of another country. It is important to note it is not necessary for her to either have or have applied for that citizenship, that is not the test. Similarly, whether Bangladesh is willing to take her is not relevant. That is not the test either.
Some very broad tests indeed. But if that is all the law requires then it's just a moral argument, and Javid won't worry about that element of the story (plus it will be for Hunt to deal with any annoyance from Bangladesh).
I copy pasted the provision last night. He has to be satisfied that her presence her would be seriously prejudicial to the public good and that she is at least eligible for other citizenship. In the recent Court of Appeal decisions where these boxes are ticked the courts have not interfered. Indeed they have gone so far as to emphasise that citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights.
Her children may be a more complicated matter both in their own right and as EU citizens through their father. She will probably try to piggyback on the back of them and article 8 rights to family life etc but the authorities are not sympathetic to that where the criteria are met.
It's interesting that the Court cited feudal law, although I think the legal concepts go back even further, to Roman law.
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.
Can't they?
Nope. Dual citizenship is illegal for Bangladeshis over the age of 21. If you take the citizenship of another country you automatically lose your Bangladeshi citizenship.
The SIAC decision I linked to before has a lot of detail about Bangladeshi citizenship law. There's an Instruction issued in 2008 saying that if Bangladeshis are naturalised as British they can retain their Bangladeshi citizenship. I'm not sure whether that applied retrospectively.
But in any case I haven't seen any indication that her parents were naturalised as British. Reportedly her father didn't even come to the UK until 2007.
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.
Well indeed. It's a bit arrogant to think we should have the right to get rid of our citizens and other countries should be obliged to take them.
That's one in the eye for the "Caroline Lucas is a harmless moderate" school of thought, for starters.
What a bunch of ignorant muppets. You would like to think that they would reflect on whether socialism is in fact in the interests of the common person but there is not a chance of that.
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.
Are you sure he wasn't just from Manchester?
Well, yes, the accent was genuine. But some of my fellow citizens just have a speech pattern in which everything sounds funny - like it was scripted by Peter Kay or Les Dawson. I say this with affection.
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.
Well indeed. It's a bit arrogant to think we should have the right to get rid of our citizens and other countries should be obliged to take them.
We didn't get rid of her. She left voluntarily.
As you know, I'm talking about deprival of citizenship.
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
I think you need to wake up and accept the result of the referendum.
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.
It's all that jogging he did in Great British Holiday.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
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.
Why not? Dual citizenship is allowed.
If they were both born in Bangladesh but later immigrated here my understanding is that she also has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that is right then what the Home Secretary has done seems to be legally competent because he has reasonable cause to believe she is entitled to citizenship of another country. It is important to note it is not necessary for her to either have or have applied for that citizenship, that is not the test. Similarly, whether Bangladesh is willing to take her is not relevant. That is not the test either.
Some very broad tests indeed. But if that is all the law requires then it's just a moral argument, and Javid won't worry about that element of the story (plus it will be for Hunt to deal with any annoyance from Bangladesh).
I copy pasted the provision last night. He has to be satisfied that her presence her would be seriously prejudicial to the public good and that she is at least eligible for other citizenship. In the recent Court of Appeal decisions where these boxes are ticked the courts have not interfered. Indeed they have gone so far as to emphasise that citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights.
No - that is the criterion for people who are British through naturalisation and can be deprived of UK citizenship leaving them stateless (provided they are in a position to become a national of another country).
The criterion for those born British (who can't be made stateless) is just the "conducive to the public good" one.
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.
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.
Well indeed. It's a bit arrogant to think we should have the right to get rid of our citizens and other countries should be obliged to take them.
It certainly seems impolitic in diplomatic terms, but is arrogant really the right word? Presumably any nation absolutely has the right to do that. Whether they should being another question. And what is the common practice of not allowing dual citizenship (and so presumably taking away someone's citizenship if they take on that of another nation) if not by implication getting rid of your citizens so other countries are obliged to deal with them? (yes, in that case the other country is happy to take them, but is it not arrogant of a nation to say it no longer has any obligation to protect the rights of one of their lifelong citizens just because they are now dual?)
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
You got further than me.
I was strongly encouraged to apply by several MPs and MEPs but never did so.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
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.
Wiki says the Father only came to England in 2007
I’m sorry that’s wrong, I was looking at Sharmeena Begum not Shamima.
Although The Sun says both Parents are from Bangladesh
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
I think you need to wake up and accept the result of the referendum.
It's been nearly three years and the Tories have given it their best shot, but we can all see the result. Surely it is time to put it out of its misery.
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
I think you need to wake up and accept the result of the referendum.
The result of the referendum is that Eurosceptics are locked in a doomsday device. I accept it.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
But you might have been the one Tory MP who defected to UKIP who kept his seat in a GE..
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
I don't think 'not leaving' is wrong. I do think failing to respect the democratic mandate is.
If you want to argue for 'rejoin' then great. I'd even be happy to have a clause in our agreements with the EU so that we could rejoin within a few months, but clearly we have to leave.
The Tiggers are quite legitimate in wanting to remain in the EU, but their views have no merit whilst there is an undelivered-upon mandate to enact.
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.
He buys supplements from Alex Jones
Are there any alt-right internet personalities who don't sell vitamin supplements, lol.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
As I understand it, they're two different provisions.
If you're British by birth, you can't be made stateless, so you have to be a citizen of another country already.
If you're British by naturalisation you can be made temporarily stateless provided you have the ability to obtain citizenship of another country.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
And, having to be a social worker.
I was annoyed at the time, but really, they understood me better than I understood myself.
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
I think you need to wake up and accept the result of the referendum.
I don't accept that a non binding referendum should be implemented if it means wrecking the economy.
Boris Johnson's strategy of voting Leave to get a better deal but remaining if this is not achievable could still be enacted:
I'm quite excited about what the Tiggers might bring to British politics.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
I doubt the "Tiggers" will be laughing about the chaos a No Deal Brexit is going to unleash!
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
It’s pretty clear it’s either mildly tweaked May’s Deal, or No Brexit. No Brexit wouldn’t pass either the Commons or a Referendum. And I doubt it’ll happen by accident either now.
If the MPs want to delay (with the EU’s blessing) or revoke at one minute to midnight rather than passing the deal, fine, but those choices aren’t going to go away.
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.
Well indeed. It's a bit arrogant to think we should have the right to get rid of our citizens and other countries should be obliged to take them.
We didn't get rid of her. She left voluntarily.
As you know, I'm talking about deprival of citizenship.
Consequence of her actions. That she made voluntarily.
Want to be a citizen here? Don't go abroad and commit treason.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
That’s rather like wanting a six-pack without making changes to your diet or going to the gym
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
But you might have been the one Tory MP who defected to UKIP who kept his seat in a GE..
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
That’s rather like wanting a six-pack without making changes to your diet or going to the gym
Jeffrey Archer said of James Goldsmith that he'd like to be an MP if he didn't have to win an election; he'd like to be a minister if he didn't have to be an MP, and he'd like to be Prime Minister if he didn't have to deal with the cabinet: he was "by nature a dictator".
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
But you might have been the one Tory MP who defected to UKIP who kept his seat in a GE..
Gerard Batten would not inspire confidence in me.
I'm tempted to join UKIP just to wind up Gerard Batten and Tommy Robinson.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
That’s rather like wanting a six-pack without making changes to your diet or going to the gym
Maybe. In the States, of course, you can be directly appointed and you can also become one via the Lords.
I just think it’s hard now for an MP to have any sort of life outside politics, and boy does it show.
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
And, having to be a social worker.
I was annoyed at the time, but really, they understood me better than I understood myself.
I have very little interest in being a social worker.
I do have an interest in listening on a 1:1 basis to different people’s life experiences and views on shaping national legislation and political issues, but that’s not quite the same thing.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
For an ordinary person to suddenly find themselves amongst that lot must be a massive shock.
I think CCHQ did me a huge favour when they turned me down. Had I made it into Parliament, I'm sure I'd have hated it. It was good judgement on their part.
Also, whilst I’d find the legislation and political debate fascinating, the prospect of spending my weekends pounding the pavements, opening village fetes and dealing with local association small-p politics didn’t fill me with glee.
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
That’s rather like wanting a six-pack without making changes to your diet or going to the gym
Jeffrey Archer said of James Goldsmith that he'd like to be an MP if he didn't have to win an election; he'd like to be a minister if he didn't have to be an MP, and he'd like to be Prime Minister if he didn't have to deal with the cabinet - he's "by nature a dictator".
I remember reading a book by Mathew Parris called "Chance Witness" in which he detailed his life as an MP. He delicately described the situation of an MP whose constituency included Windsor castle in the 1960s or 1970s. This MP sought and achieved re-election despite the fact that his intrapersonal skills were non existent! So the local association encouraged him not to campaign at elections and do all the boring, tedious work to do with public relations as he was voter repellent. He was a lucky MP and their is such competition to be an MP these days that I doubt such an MP even in a safe seat would survive these days!
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
Tricoteuses? Now that's one I'venot seen before.
It will be fascinating how much the Tiggers can agree to compromise and work together given at first glance they are keen to stress how much they have not changed at all, it is their former parties, and so they are deliberately trying to suggest their views on all those former issues, which will not line up with one another, are still there.
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
She’s a social democrat, and probably even to the Left of people like Chuka Umunna.
I don’t even know how she passed the candidate board and got selected in her constituency. You’d have thought they’d have sounded that out.
I think once people get elected they get delusions of grandeur.
On the other side Andrea Jenkyns whilst we were campaigning for her in 2015 came across as a very reasonable Cameroon type of Tory.
They spend too much time in a wholly political bubble.
This is why I think them having second jobs and a proper life outside politics is a good thing, and that councillors can bloody do the local case work stuff.
How often does anyone write to their councillor about stuff rather than their MP?
Parliament should only sit for 3-4 days a week about 3 months a year, and otherwise only recalled when there’s a big urgent issue. MPs should be supported by statute and their employer/ex-employer to be gainfully employed outside of that.
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
She also said former ministers Phillip Lee and Justine Greening could “probably, possible, maybe” soon follow her,
Except she said nothing of the sort re destroying the Tory party.
Allen said that if a new party formed out of The Independent Group is successful, then “there won’t be a Tory Party to go back to”
I think that Allen detests the Conservatives. She became an MP and realised she had no beliefs in common.
She’s a social democrat, and probably even to the Left of people like Chuka Umunna.
I don’t even know how she passed the candidate board and got selected in her constituency. You’d have thought they’d have sounded that out.
I think once people get elected they get delusions of grandeur.
On the other side Andrea Jenkyns whilst we were campaigning for her in 2015 came across as a very reasonable Cameroon type of Tory.
They spend too much time in a wholly political bubble.
This is why I think them having second jobs and a proper life outside politics is a good thing, and that councillors can bloody do the local case work stuff.
How often does anyone write to their councillor about stuff rather than their MP?
Parliament should only sit for 3-4 days a week about 3 months a year, and otherwise only recalled when there’s a big urgent issue. MPs should be supported by statute and their employer/ex-employer to be gainfully employed outside of that.
As a councillor I quite often got stuff that was really for the MP. More often than vice versa. But then we did make the effort to keep in touch with our residents.
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
Tricoteuses? Now that's one I'venot seen before.
It will be fascinating how much the Tiggers can agree to compromise and work together given at first glance they are keen to stress how much they have not changed at all, it is their former parties, and so they are deliberately trying to suggest their views on all those former issues, which will not line up with one another, are still there.
To be fair about 80% of Tory or Labour policies up to the Corbyn takeover of the Labour party were so similar either party could implement them! Indeed it was probably higher than 80% in Tony Blairs period of ascendency. As an example one of the General Elections in either 2010 or 2015 had something like a £4 Billion difference in spending between Labour and Tory IIRC! If correct that is less difference than the choice between the softest Brexit and staying in the EU!
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
For me the issue here is what should be the main driver of a Home Secretary's decisions in these difficult matters. Should it be the law as guided by statute and precedent but tempered by practicality? Or should it be in response to what's on the front page of the tabloids and to promote one's prospects of becoming leader of the Conservative party?
Comments
Is that what a burning desire for social justice does for you?
Thanks for the update. It seems he goes to the gym four mornings a week too. Botox and working out, the secret to eternal youth.
Which rather displays how our action is an abdication of the responsibility to deal with the mess one of our citizens has created.
I have zero sympathy for the woman herself ( the child is another matter) - but Javid’s action is wrong.
There are a couple of caveats;
Although they may well believe that the Brexit referendum can be ignored they're just plain wrong. Assuming that Brexit happens on time and on date then they're laughing. In that case they're free of something that would handicap them forever.
They really need to hold off the embrace of Dracula (aka Uncle Vince).
edit: If they actually call themselves the Tiggers I think it might prove a stroke of genius. It just occurred to me, but if I was in their midst I'd be fighting every yard to do exactly the above.
Although The Sun says both Parents are from Bangladesh
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8434183/jihadi-bride-shamima-begums-family-demand-government-bring-her-home-where-she-belongs-claiming-shes-pregnant-and-vulnerable/
If they were both born in Bangladesh but later immigrated here my understanding is that she also has the right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If that is right then what the Home Secretary has done seems to be legally competent because he has reasonable cause to believe she is entitled to citizenship of another country. It is important to note it is not necessary for her to either have or have applied for that citizenship, that is not the test. Similarly, whether Bangladesh is willing to take her is not relevant. That is not the test either.
See also: Britain eighteen months into a Corbyn Government
When I backed Labour to win Enfield North @ 3-1, it had nothing to do with quality of their candidate.
Joan Ryan got very emotional when she followed Lewis
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/01/venezuela.leadersandreply
Her children may be a more complicated matter both in their own right and as EU citizens through their father. She will probably try to piggyback on the back of them and article 8 rights to family life etc but the authorities are not sympathetic to that where the criteria are met.
"Kevin Maguire may refer to:
Kevin Maguire (artist) (born 1960), American comic book penciller
Kevin Maguire (ice hockey) (born 1963), former professional ice hockey forward and referee
Kevin Maguire (figure skater) (born 1980), Canadian pair skater
Kevin Maguire (journalist) (born 1961), British political journalist"
One deduces that it is unlikely to be the Canadian figure skater, for starters...
I think he's from Hartlepool
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/26a6adbe-141a-48d2-bafa-c8686b9093c5
But in any case I haven't seen any indication that her parents were naturalised as British. Reportedly her father didn't even come to the UK until 2007.
Soubs deserves credit for winning and holding a marginal, however frustrating she is.
Wollaston is a one-woman argument against primaries.
I know politics is a cynical business but I think their motivation is above being proved correct that Brexit will wreck the UK economy. Once manufacturers have shut down a business they are not going to suddenly change their mind and re-open it.
Honda said that Brexit was not the main driver in their closure but even if it were they are not going to commit commercial suicide in the UK and say that the British people voted for Brexit and in doing so they voted to close Swindon's Honda plant by proxy.
I think people need to wake up and not go through with Brexit.
1. is a citizen of another country
2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
The criterion for those born British (who can't be made stateless) is just the "conducive to the public good" one.
I was strongly encouraged to apply by several MPs and MEPs but never did so.
https://twitter.com/EuropeStreet/status/1097828393599397891
I’d much rather be a Minister than an MP, not that I’ll ever be that either.
They should calm down. Calm down. Calm down. Calm down...
Ah, my coat...
If you want to argue for 'rejoin' then great. I'd even be happy to have a clause in our agreements with the EU so that we could rejoin within a few months, but clearly we have to leave.
The Tiggers are quite legitimate in wanting to remain in the EU, but their views have no merit whilst there is an undelivered-upon mandate to enact.
If you're British by birth, you can't be made stateless, so you have to be a citizen of another country already.
If you're British by naturalisation you can be made temporarily stateless provided you have the ability to obtain citizenship of another country.
I was annoyed at the time, but really, they understood me better than I understood myself.
Boris Johnson's strategy of voting Leave to get a better deal but remaining if this is not achievable could still be enacted:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68437/boris-johnson-vote-leave-get-better-eu-deal-britain
If the MPs want to delay (with the EU’s blessing) or revoke at one minute to midnight rather than passing the deal, fine, but those choices aren’t going to go away.
Want to be a citizen here? Don't go abroad and commit treason.
Sounds good to me!
I don’t even know how she passed the candidate board and got selected in her constituency. You’d have thought they’d have sounded that out.
Do let us know.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
On the other side Andrea Jenkyns whilst we were campaigning for her in 2015 came across as a very reasonable Cameroon type of Tory.
I just think it’s hard now for an MP to have any sort of life outside politics, and boy does it show.
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
https://twitter.com/Mendelpol/status/1098298969854222337
I do have an interest in listening on a 1:1 basis to different people’s life experiences and views on shaping national legislation and political issues, but that’s not quite the same thing.
It will be fascinating how much the Tiggers can agree to compromise and work together given at first glance they are keen to stress how much they have not changed at all, it is their former parties, and so they are deliberately trying to suggest their views on all those former issues, which will not line up with one another, are still there.
This is why I think them having second jobs and a proper life outside politics is a good thing, and that councillors can bloody do the local case work stuff.
How often does anyone write to their councillor about stuff rather than their MP?
Parliament should only sit for 3-4 days a week about 3 months a year, and otherwise only recalled when there’s a big urgent issue. MPs should be supported by statute and their employer/ex-employer to be gainfully employed outside of that.
It's not 200, by any chance?
Toughie.
https://twitter.com/MJCreighton/status/1098300869630676995