Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
Yes, that is the nub of the matter.
At present, the main policy of the Conservative party is to deliver the biggest change to the status quo - leaving the European Union - that we have seen since Mrs T.
And we have a Labour party that if elected could be more radical in power than any since Attlee.
So where on earth does this leave the millions of people in this country who wish to trundle on pretty much as we are, who wish to have a government that just keeps the show on the road, doesn't do stupid things, doesn't take big risks, doesn't chase unicorns, doesn't feel it has to be throwing its weight around the whole time?
Stuffed, that's where. Hence IMO the potential mass appeal of the IG if things go their way, if they get a bit of luck in running, if they get a charismatic leader and some good recruits.
10/1 to win the next election though? No, I'm not quite having that!
It's drifted out to 12, now. But at 20 it was indeed the great trading bet I recommended, and not the screaming lay that another PB'er suggested.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
They do and they are ignored.
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
(Not) Railing Grayling?
Jailing Grayling would be almost justifiable at this point...
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
They do and they are ignored.
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
The question wasn't should we invoke Article 50 or not, the question was should we Remain or Leave. We haven't Left yet - as Remainers keep telling us in response to any good economic news.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
And are you settled on that or should we ask again tomorrow?
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
Yeah but someone on here googled Bangladeshi nationality law.
We're tired of experts etc etc.
To be fair, we're not quite as clueless as the journalists. Earlier today I came across a learned discussion of the legal issues under a Sky News banner, based largely on parts of the British Nationality Act 1981 that were removed in 2006.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
They do and they are ignored.
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
Opposition parties frequently call for GEs when they think the government has lost credibility.
They do and they are ignored.
Traditionally if they win a no confidence vote in parliament, then an election happens.
And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.
Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
Tyndall's never going to give it up. We could be standing round watching his coffin being lowered into the ground and we'll hear a muffled voice bitching about some earlier decision that hadn't been enacted.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....
And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
Look at the electorate as being a jury and the referendum a trial. At the original trial in 2016, having listened to counsel for both sides, the counsel for the defence (remain) being spectacularly incompetent, counsel for the prosecution (leave) having manipulated and potentially fabricated the evidence, it votes narrowly for the latter. The sentence imposed, while not being death, will nevertheless be a form of punishment that causes irreversible harm to the defendant (Britain) and, indeed, the jury.
Prior to the punishment being inflicted, however, new evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the original conviction. Do we carry out the sentence nonetheless? Or do we present the fresh evidence back to the jury at a retrial prior to the sentence being carried out? I would suggest the latter is the sensible course of action.
But of course that is a dumb metaphor because the electorate are not a jury and the referendum was not a trial. Nor is there any compelling fresh evidence.
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
It will be interesting to see how brave they want to be.
Evidence based policy might result in the legalisation of drugs as per Portugal rather fighting on forlornly in a war we can't win.
Evidence based policy might conclude that free TV licences for the older population are pretty ridiculous when they are the only ones left watching the BBC.
Evidence based policy might suggest that a tax system which taxes dividend income at a lower rate than NMW earnings is in need of reform.
I could go on but how many groups are they willing to upset?
A good point. Some decent evidence might also be marshaled in support of slashing taxes to the bone or of nationalizing the utilities. Or scrapping trident maybe. Or even privatizing the NHS. Seek and ye shall find.
But what I strongly suspect is that 'evidence based' is just bullshit jargon for 'we won't do anything to frighten the horses'.
Which is absolutely fair enough. Many people do not want lots of change and many more say that they do but don't really. Defence of the status quo is a very respectable position to take and it ought to be represented. The IG will serve a useful purpose by doing so, and who knows how far they might go with it. Only 10/1 to win the next election.
But let us not pretend that this is something new and exciting, something more than it is. We can safely leave that to Chuka.
Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
No it is not.
Someone in response replied [agreeing it seems with that idea] that this is the biggest change since Mrs T. But that rather belies the point.
If defense of the status quo was the job of the Conservative Party then when the status quo included secondary picketing, nationalised companies, union beer and sandwiches etc then under your logic the job of the Conservative Party would have been to defend secondary picketing, nationalised industry, union beer and sandwiches etc
When the status quo goes against Conservative principles there is nothing unConservative about wishing to change the status quo.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?
Asking for a friend.
I'm sure TSE has a long list of new thoughts to offer. Glittering asides, wise gems, and insightful predictions. It'd be a very dark day for AV thread headers if that wasn't the case.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....
And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.
Bailing Grayling is trying to keep his ferry from sinking.
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
Name one of the current set of MPs who voted Leave in the referendum, who has "realised" that triggering A50 might have been a mistake?
What we have is a hardcore set of extreme Remainer MPs who haven't reconciled themselves to the original decision. They've not changed their mind and that's the problem. They thought leaving was wrong, they fought against it, lost and haven't given up.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I .
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
TBH Corbyn will probably be onto a loser when the Daily Mail aren't attacking him.
So how popular do you think his stance is in the Labour heartlands, let alone marginals and Tory seats? I hope Jezza trumpets this particular policy from the rooftops, especially at election time.
Only a small minority of voters view her as a big security threat. The vast majority of voters positively hate her, especially after justifying the arena bombing. That’s the truth behind polls “strip her of her citizenship, she’s a threat”. Its an age old term and age old trap politicians mustn’t fall into called ‘trial by media’
the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.
Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I .
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I'm new to this forum. The depth of knowledge, to the extent that commentors are fully conversant with Bangladeshi Nationality Law, is outstanding. As a solicitor of 18 years standing in this jurisdiction, not being an immigration specialist, I would not consider myself remotely qualified to offer authoritative interpretations of the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly ones based on reading isolated sections alone. So the fact that so many on here can opine so authoritatively on the equivalent provisions in Bangladeshi law, specifically the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended and interpreted according to constitutional norms there) demonstrates how far I have to travel to be worthy of comment here.
😂😂
😇
That is a fabulous comment and can be applied to quite a lot of subjects discussed on here. Top marks
Naturally you are referring to my comment rather than @dougseal
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
What do you make of the two elections of 1974?
The result of the first vote was enacted with the elected MPs being returned to Parliament.
The party that won the most votes in Feb 1974 didn't see their mandate enacted.
No on voted for a party. They voted for individual MPs. Shame I have to teach you the basics of democracy.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
I can think of a simple fix for that - stop failing.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
And are you settled on that or should we ask again tomorrow?
If you follow my posts that has been my position for months
Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?
Asking for a friend.
I'm sure TSE has a long list of new thoughts to offer. Glittering asides, wise gems, and insightful predictions. It'd be a very dark day for AV thread headers if that wasn't the case.
The same AV rejected by referendum in 2011 by 68% to 32%?
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I .
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
Democracy is an end in itself. If you decide it can be ignored or overturned once then it can be done again and again in ways you will not like.
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I .
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
Anna Soubry, now free from the constraints of party loyalty, has been unleashing on her former colleague Chris Grayling. Poor Grayling is clearly struggling to cope having become the whipping boy for everyone with a mean word to say about this government.
Apparently his people have been in touch with the Yorkshire Post, asking them to desist from always calling him "Failing Grayling" as he really doesn't like it.
Would he prefer Flailing ?
Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....
And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.
Bailing Grayling is trying to keep his ferry from sinking.
TBH Corbyn will probably be onto a loser when the Daily Mail aren't attacking him.
So how popular do you think his stance is in the Labour heartlands, let alone marginals and Tory seats? I hope Jezza trumpets this particular policy from the rooftops, especially at election time.
Only a small minority of voters view her as a big security threat. The vast majority of voters positively hate her, especially after justifying the arena bombing. That’s the truth behind polls “strip her of her citizenship, she’s a threat”. Its an age old term and age old trap politicians mustn’t fall into called ‘trial by media’
the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.
Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.
The right policy that makes us safe is a drone strike taking her out, like Jihadi John, but that's no longer an option now that she's no longer an enemy combatant.
Not letting her return to this country, subject to judicial review, is perfectly legal. If you want the law to be changed seek it to be changed. I have no problems with the law of the land being implemented here as intended though.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I .
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
People are entitled to change their minds as much as they like. They are not entitled to use that as an excuse to overturn a democratic vote. People change their minds all the time but we don't hold a new GE every time the polls say the Government is unpopular.
No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it. Similarly with a referendum.
Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
Democracy is an end in itself. If you decide it can be ignored or overturned once then it can be done again and again in ways you will not like.
I disagree that it's an end in itself, but Ian and Dadge are totally ignoring that part of what democracy is for is resolving conflicts of interest between different groups and resolving questions which are value judgements. Reason can't fulfill either of those functions
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.
The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
Being able to change our mind is the essence of democracy.
Only once the result of a vote is enacted. Otherwise it is not democratic.
You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
So when the people have voted to leave what (following your definition) is a tyranny, it's tyrannical not to accede to the demands of supporters of said tyranny to have a second vote to allow the people to choose continued tyranny? Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country? .
It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters.
At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.
Maybe we should look to local government for an understanding. Certainly in Wales independent councillors are to be found everywhere.
Many areas have a great many. It gets a bit silly when you can have multiple independent groups on the same council. I know down in Cornwall they usually have a very high number of independents, even up to a third or more.
It can work, but there is a reason political parties, imperfect as they are, are a good idea to provide a general direction on things.
Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters.
At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.
If he'd listened to me he could have done this bloody ages ago and avoided so much hassle.
Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.
Javid has made a mistake. Authorities in the area today said they would be willing to investigate and prosecute members of IS, provided they got legal and other help from us. That is what we should be doing - helping them bring justice for the victims of IS. Then - and only then - do we consider what we do if (and when) IS members return to Britain.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
Third party breakaway have a habit of reshaping a main party ultimately e.g. the Peelites turning the Whigs into the Liberals, the Liberal Unionists influencing the Tories and the SDP setting the way for New Labour. The TIG will hope to do the same
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.
I was being kind and assuming it was the second of the options.
I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%
I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
In which case you reject democracy.
That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddon
TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.
TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...
'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”
Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).
It’s a mark of how thick the ERG are, that they even now they don’t grasp this point.
As someone remarked below, if Brexit fails to happen, they will bear a significant part of the responsibility; if we No Deal, then much of it.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?
If Labour wins the next election... stop there , they won't, not if Corbyn is leader.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
I agree with all of that. Also, there is a wider question. Why should we be trying to dump this villainess on another country? Regardless of the legal details, she has never even visited Bangladesh. We made her, we should bloody deal with her.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.
Such is the positioning of the New Left. They're enemies of the West (the US, UK, Israel, and the global Jewish-Capitalist-Zionist conspiracy that persists in their fevered imaginations,) and the enemies of their enemies are their friends.
Fruitcakes, loonies and not-really-closet-anymore racists: that's the Labour Party now.
TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.
TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...
'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”
Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what's going through Chuka's head
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
I have a low opinion of anyone who thinks that it is a good idea to ignore the result of a referendum.
I have a low opinion of anyone who can look at the state of British politics over the last two and a half years and can conclude that the result of the referendum has been ignored.
If we do not leave then it has been ignored. Basic logic.
There's a difference between ignoring and rejecting.
Both are equally bad when it comes to a democratic decision.
It would've been okay for May to say that she was rejecting, but not ignoring, the referendum result of an advisory referendum - on the basis that she didn't believe that Brexit was in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately Cameron had stated that the result would not be rejected, so his successor's hands were tied. His promise should've been challenged before the election.
It would not have been okay for May to say that. There would have been chaos.
If I'd been leader there's no way I would've allowed Brexit to happen. I'm not against the concept of Britain being outside the EU, but I am against the trauma of leaving it. There's nothing so bad about the EU that excuses the pain.
And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
Yes, I agree with all that. Just because I think it looks as though Javid has satisfied the part of the procedure relating to citizenship, please don't conclude from that that I think he's necessarily satisfied the other requirements, or that his action is right or wise, or that the existing rules are good ones.
I think politicians should be given as little power as possible to meddle directly in such matters, and there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of what power they are given.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
I don't think the cognoscenti like Corbyn very much. They do hate the tabloids particularly the Mail and the Sun. I don't have any real objection to what he has said on this matter - the bits I've seen anyway - not like when he brought up his reservations with 'shoot to kill' in the immediate aftermath of terror incidents.
I suspect the Home Office panicked. I wouldn't like to be in Javid's position right now. The idea that we can expect her to go to Bangladesh is just ridiculous. He knows the outrage her return will cause - Ronnie Biggs hardly compares. What choice do we have? Unless she is put on trial where she is.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
In all fairness, you rarely have the foggiest idea nowadays what you are voting for under FPP.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.
So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.
I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
An orderly Brexit is on offer. But, most MP's don't want an orderly Brexit.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
There is a legal process though.
EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
Well, she’s an obnoxious airhead. But, we knew that.
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country? .
It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
I don't think you can regard whatever's happened behind closed doors in the Home Office as due process. Who knows what basis the decision was made on?
The due process would start with an appeal. But it's a problem that - if I understand correctly (I have to say that in case any solicitors are reading this) - the order would remain in force for however long the appeal took. It's been suggested it might take years in this case.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.
So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.
I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.
It doesn't really matter. What matters is what those MPs who were elected then will vote for now.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.
The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
Oh, I see. Except that the DUP had similar commitments, so leaving both SM and CU did actually win a majority (kind of).
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
Well, she’s an obnoxious airhead. But, we knew that.
I'm deeply amused by the thought of your device autocorrecting "warhead" to "airhead".
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country? .
It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
I am making a distinction between a legal process, where a judge/jury make a decision after a show of evidence, and a process that is legal, such as the current one.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I ing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
The reason is quite simple: Civilisation is breaking down. The rule of law is in serious trouble. We are reverting to a brutal, tribal state of affairs. We just don't realise it or see it, or we otherwise pretend it isn't happening, because it doesn't seem to affect us.
For the last century or so, the idea that banishment without due process is an acceptable form of punishment would be unthinkable. It is the undoing of enlightenment idea of citizenship. But it has all suddenly become okay.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party
Labour (and/or TIG) offering to support the deal if she does - thereby delivering the majority - and the only other option being to become forever the PM who trashed the country. Or be forced into a long and unpredictable extension or revocation.
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Bringing her back before she has faced justice in the country in which she chose to live is enabling her to evade justice. Do you think that is right?
Comments
Asking for a friend.
What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Someone in response replied [agreeing it seems with that idea] that this is the biggest change since Mrs T. But that rather belies the point.
If defense of the status quo was the job of the Conservative Party then when the status quo included secondary picketing, nationalised companies, union beer and sandwiches etc then under your logic the job of the Conservative Party would have been to defend secondary picketing, nationalised industry, union beer and sandwiches etc
When the status quo goes against Conservative principles there is nothing unConservative about wishing to change the status quo.
Oh. There is no ferry, it seems.
What we have is a hardcore set of extreme Remainer MPs who haven't reconciled themselves to the original decision. They've not changed their mind and that's the problem. They thought leaving was wrong, they fought against it, lost and haven't given up.
When the only future employment he can get is as a cabbie....
the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.
Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.
That AV?
The betting fav is on Thornberry. But I am looking at Raynor. The former isn't seen as sincere in her lefty views surely?
Not letting her return to this country, subject to judicial review, is perfectly legal. If you want the law to be changed seek it to be changed. I have no problems with the law of the land being implemented here as intended though.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.
It can work, but there is a reason political parties, imperfect as they are, are a good idea to provide a general direction on things.
Javid has made a mistake. Authorities in the area today said they would be willing to investigate and prosecute members of IS, provided they got legal and other help from us. That is what we should be doing - helping them bring justice for the victims of IS. Then - and only then - do we consider what we do if (and when) IS members return to Britain.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...
'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”
As someone remarked below, if Brexit fails to happen, they will bear a significant part of the responsibility; if we No Deal, then much of it.
If Labour wins the next election... stop there , they won't, not if Corbyn is leader.
Fruitcakes, loonies and not-really-closet-anymore racists: that's the Labour Party now.
There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.
If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
I think politicians should be given as little power as possible to meddle directly in such matters, and there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of what power they are given.
I suspect the Home Office panicked. I wouldn't like to be in Javid's position right now. The idea that we can expect her to go to Bangladesh is just ridiculous. He knows the outrage her return will cause - Ronnie Biggs hardly compares. What choice do we have? Unless she is put on trial where she is.
You could read that to mean that all deals are bad. She certainly behaves as if that's the way she meant it.
So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.
I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.
EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.
The due process would start with an appeal. But it's a problem that - if I understand correctly (I have to say that in case any solicitors are reading this) - the order would remain in force for however long the appeal took. It's been suggested it might take years in this case.
As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
Exciting new twist. The candidates son testified against him! Just look at that picture.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1098556067976564736?s=19
I should have been clearer.
For the last century or so, the idea that banishment without due process is an acceptable form of punishment would be unthinkable. It is the undoing of enlightenment idea of citizenship. But it has all suddenly become okay.
When it's sorted she is going, anyway.