Somewhat off topic I do wonder what the reaction of all the younger generation to the EU will be when the full implications of the EU having passed the new copyright laws become clear. Blaming the EU for no more YouTube or memes might make some of the younger generation think twice about their Europhilia.
YouTube have made clear that they think the only way they will be able to abide by the new laws will be to block access to YouTube from EU countries. Many other platforms are facing the same dilemma. If the biggest video hosting network in the world doesn't think it will be able to operate under the new rules there is really no chance any other provider will.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
It does sound exciting. I might even buy it if it has good graphics.
But hopefully the 'Libertarian' aspect is more interesting than its usual meaning of a principled and intellectually coherent position against paying any tax.
Austin was the evens clear favourite in the next defection market. I forget if the terms were just any defection (or, indeed, if leaving a party to be independent even counts) or defection specifically to the Tiggers.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
Huge story breaking in Italy. Putin agreed to a request from Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini to covertly finance his Euro election campaign. The plan was to conceal the payment behind an apparently normal business deal.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed.
Javid is grandstanding, pure and simple.
That is a big part of the Standarsd critique in that by trying to look "tough" to the Conservative faithful, Javid may have ridden roughshod over due process.
However, to misquote Helen Lovejoy "won't somebody think of the child?"
Despite the rumours of lots more to come is it really likely. Austin was seen as probable for days now, how many others have been seen as likely and not denied it yet?
I think the Tories are just about keeping a lid on things, doubtless with more quiet words behind the scenes about how we aren't going no deal. But it is widely rumoured another batch from Labour will soon be on its way.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed.
Javid is grandstanding, pure and simple.
That is a big part of the Standarsd critique in that by trying to look "tough" to the Conservative faithful, Javid may have ridden roughshod over due process.
However, to misquote Helen Lovejoy "won't somebody think of the child?"
The law seems to be that Javid has to be first mover here and then it goes to the courts. I'm not sure what other due process could have been followed and Javid didn't create this law.
I would have no objection to the courts being involved earlier rather than just on appeal and the Home Secretary maybe petitioning the courts (who could then decide), but that's not the law.
If the law needs changing now seems a very good time to debate that, but its not the Home Secretaries fault for following existing law as it stands today.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
Huge story breaking in Italy. Putin agreed to a request from Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini to covertly finance his Euro election campaign. The plan was to conceal the payment behind an apparently normal business deal.
Cooper is steeped in Labour and the Trade Unions -- I think the emotional connection to Labour is too strong for her to jump.
Starmer only joined the Labour Party shortly before being found a plum seat -- I think he could jump.
But, the best advice is always to stay put. Nothing lasts for ever.
The impermanence of all things applies equally to our two main parties. They may stagger on until we are all in our graves or they may end tomorrow. If there was ever going to be a significant shake up then now seems as likely time as any.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Where does Blair think the SNP sits with respect to "the centre ground"?
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Wasn't it the SNP under Salmond that had confidence and supply from the Unionists? *innocent face*
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
It does sound exciting. I might even buy it if it has good graphics.
But hopefully the 'Libertarian' aspect is more interesting than its usual meaning of a principled and intellectually coherent position against paying any tax.
Oxymoron alert: "...a principled and intellectually coherent position against paying any tax."
Yeah... I was just about to post about the closeness of Austin and Watson. They were fond of a chicken bhuna together when they were plotting Blair's downfall with the rest of West Mids Labour. If a reasonable handful of working class not very remainy seats were to go independent (with a small i), that would be a sizeable holing of the Corbyn ship.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
If that's the case she'll have it back within a week.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Wasn't it the SNP under Salmond that had confidence and supply from the Unionists? *innocent face*
You may as well get your facts right if you're going with that innocent face guff.
'The SNP initially approached the Lib Dems for a coalition government, but the Lib Dems turned them down.[2] Ultimately, the Greens agreed to provide the numbers to vote in an SNP minority government, with SNP leader Alex Salmond as First Minister'
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Where does Blair think the SNP sits with respect to "the centre ground"?
That they're on the bad kind of centre ground I'd guess.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
We can always reinvoke down the line.
Welcome back to Remain!
Its where I started off.
It's important you understand that this is not a trap that was sprung by the EU catching us unawares with dastardly cunning. All the issues which are presenting themselves now were in existence prior to June 2016. But of course they were hand waved away.
Does this mean that it is impossible to leave? Certainly on ERG's terms; the UK has and had developed all kinds of ties and committments that can't just be cut with a pair of scissors. But not on more sensible terms that were dismissed almost immediately by that well known Leaver/Remainer* Theresa May.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
How do you do so when the person isn't in the country and there is no knowledge as to where she is.
Sad news..... such transfer bans are of little import to we spurs fans of course.
I feel sorry for fans of Spurs, a transfer ban and a stadium ban for this season.
When does Shite Hart Lane II open?
I had tickets for the first match at the new stadium.
We are a national team, well south east cos that's what matters, already this year we have made Milton Keynes and Wembley part of our extended home patch ... a solitary home stadium is just for ego.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Wasn't it the SNP under Salmond that had confidence and supply from the Unionists? *innocent face*
You may as well get your facts right if you're going with that innocent face guff.
'The SNP initially approached the Lib Dems for a coalition government, but the Lib Dems turned them down.[2] Ultimately, the Greens agreed to provide the numbers to vote in an SNP minority government, with SNP leader Alex Salmond as First Minister'
A straightforward lie, as so often on Wikipedia (which I note you don't mention as your source). The Greens' two MSPs would have made no difference (and if you had actually read the source cited, you would have noted it didn't match the claim). It was Tory tacit (and frequently active) support kept him in power:
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
If a US national with combat experience in Afghanistan/Iraq moved here and applied for UK citizenship, would you apply the same logic to them?
What about joining the Saudi army or the Iranian or the Russian or anyone fighting the Kurds?
I'm not sure why you've grouped those. The Saudis are our allies, same as Israel and the USA.
Iran and Russia aren't. i would expect anyone joining their armed forces to be questioned once they returned, as with anyone fighting the Kurds, but I don't think there's any question of removing citizenship purely for that.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
We can always reinvoke down the line.
Welcome back to Remain!
Its where I started off.
It's important you understand that this is not a trap that was sprung by the EU catching us unawares with dastardly cunning. All the issues which are presenting themselves now were in existence prior to June 2016. But of course they were hand waved away.
Does this mean that it is impossible to leave? Certainly on ERG's terms; the UK has and had developed all kinds of ties and committments that can't just be cut with a pair of scissors. But not on more sensible terms that were dismissed almost immediately by that well known Leaver/Remainer* Theresa May.
*delete as the mood takes you.
The only thing our xenophobic Remainer/Leaver PM got right in this process is at the very start saying that in order to get a good deal, you had to be prepared to have no deal. That no deal is better than a bad deal.
But she then did zero preparations for no deal, Liam Fox's department has bungled it. This did not need to be the case.
If we end up remaining, that won't end the reasons why we voted to Leave. Either the EU will need to address our concerns and reform, or [more likely] we'll be back here again in the future but this time with a better leader who is prepared to risk no deal to get a good deal.
That'd be better than May's purgatory we're to be cast off into.
I'm not sure. They're anti Israeli and anti Saudi Arabian but so am I
I still remember your post attacking me as a supporter of the zionist regime when I couldn't even remember making one post about Israel - this was well before the anti semites took over Labour
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
If that's the case she'll have it back within a week.
Corbyn's provided a handy backstop to the political fallout for the Gov't from this though. Updating the treason laws might be a good idea mind; consider the counterfactual of ISIS doing well - Begum would have spawned three likely terrorists and traitors and still be out there as a terrorist breeding machine.
I have a Corbynista facebook friend -whp is actually half-Iranian - who is of the opinion that she has got exactly what she deserved and is vociferously opposed to her returning.
IMO a reasonable position would have been to have no position. Make no effort to repatriate but if she managed to return off her own bat, deal with her in the same way that we have dealt with others in similar circumstances.
Javid in his wisdom (a.k.a. seeing some frothing outrage in the tabloids and spotting an opportunity to further his Tory leadership ambitions) decided instead to 'special case' it and thus poured fuel on the fire.
Triggering Corbyn to take the opposite extreme - that we should actively seek to bring her back.
Upshot: because she is one of the 'Bethnal Green girls' whose story was and is particularly interesting to the media, and because of a shallow, self-promoting Home Secretary, she will end up being treated differently to the norm - it could be worse or it could be better, we will see.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
How do you do so when the person isn't in the country and there is no knowledge as to where she is.
That is the potential difficulty, and not being a lawyer I don't know if the HO has potential discretionary powers to strip someone of citizenship in such a case without giving notice.
However, given she was in the media spotlight and journalists clearly were in contact with her I think the Home Office will have a tough time arguing they didn't know and couldn't be expected to know where she was.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
We can always reinvoke down the line.
Welcome back to Remain!
Its where I started off.
It's important you understand that this is not a trap that was sprung by the EU catching us unawares with dastardly cunning. All the issues which are presenting themselves now were in existence prior to June 2016. But of course they were hand waved away.
Does this mean that it is impossible to leave? Certainly on ERG's terms; the UK has and had developed all kinds of ties and committments that can't just be cut with a pair of scissors. But not on more sensible terms that were dismissed almost immediately by that well known Leaver/Remainer* Theresa May.
*delete as the mood takes you.
The only thing our xenophobic Remainer/Leaver PM got right in this process is at the very start saying that in order to get a good deal, you had to be prepared to have no deal. That no deal is better than a bad deal.
But she then did zero preparations for no deal, Liam Fox's department has bungled it. This did not need to be the case.
If we end up remaining, that won't end the reasons why we voted to Leave. Either the EU will need to address our concerns and reform, or [more likely] we'll be back here again in the future but this time with a better leader who is prepared to risk no deal to get a good deal.
That'd be better than May's purgatory we're to be cast off into.
But it was a bluff. As we're seeing now and as you have identified. No deal was and is unthinkable. She got that wrong although it sounded great and stiffened the sinews of not a few Little Englanders.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
How do you do so when the person isn't in the country and there is no knowledge as to where she is.
I can't get past the notion the baby boy deserves a chance at life and I don't see why depriving him of either his nationality or his mother is a good idea.
Javid has said in the HoC that he is not deprived of his nationality.
I suspect his life chances might be better with different parents, since his (evidently fat) (so shoot me, it had to be said) mother has already lost two children to malnutrition. Most emaciated children have emaciated mothers. Those two didn't.
If we're now suggesting she ate them, does that mean she gets to join the Tory party?
Tsk, Tories eat the children of the poor, not their own.
I have a Corbynista facebook friend -whp is actually half-Iranian - who is of the opinion that she has got exactly what she deserved and is vociferously opposed to her returning.
IMO a reasonable position would have been to have no position. Make no effort to repatriate but if she managed to return off her own bat, deal with her in the same way that we have dealt with others in similar circumstances.
Javid in his wisdom (a.k.a. seeing some frothing outrage in the tabloids and spotting an opportunity to further his Tory leadership ambitions) decided instead to 'special case' it and thus poured fuel on the fire.
Triggering Corbyn to take the opposite extreme - that we should actively seek to bring her back.
Upshot: because she is one of the 'Bethnal Green girls' whose story was and is particularly interesting to the media, and because of a shallow, self-promoting Home Secretary, she will end up being treated differently to the norm - it could be worse or it could be better, we will see.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Wasn't it the SNP under Salmond that had confidence and supply from the Unionists? *innocent face*
You may as well get your facts right if you're going with that innocent face guff.
'The SNP initially approached the Lib Dems for a coalition government, but the Lib Dems turned them down.[2] Ultimately, the Greens agreed to provide the numbers to vote in an SNP minority government, with SNP leader Alex Salmond as First Minister'
A straightforward lie, as so often on Wikipedia (which I note you don't mention as your source). The Greens' two MSPs would have made no difference (and if you had actually read the source cited, you would have noted it didn't match the claim). It was Tory tacit (and frequently active) support kept him in power:
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
We can always reinvoke down the line.
Welcome back to Remain!
Its where I started off.
It's important you understand that this is not a trap that was sprung by the EU catching us unawares with dastardly cunning. All the issues which are presenting themselves now were in existence prior to June 2016. But of course they were hand waved away.
Does this mean that it is impossible to leave? Certainly on ERG's terms; the UK has and had developed all kinds of ties and committments that can't just be cut with a pair of scissors. But not on more sensible terms that were dismissed almost immediately by that well known Leaver/Remainer* Theresa May.
*delete as the mood takes you.
The only thing our xenophobic Remainer/Leaver PM got right in this process is at the very start saying that in order to get a good deal, you had to be prepared to have no deal. That no deal is better than a bad deal.
But she then did zero preparations for no deal, Liam Fox's department has bungled it. This did not need to be the case.
If we end up remaining, that won't end the reasons why we voted to Leave. Either the EU will need to address our concerns and reform, or [more likely] we'll be back here again in the future but this time with a better leader who is prepared to risk no deal to get a good deal.
That'd be better than May's purgatory we're to be cast off into.
But it was a bluff. As we're seeing now and as you have identified. No deal was and is unthinkable. She got that wrong although it sounded great and stiffened the sinews of not a few Little Englanders.
Exactly. She was forced to tell business so very early on.
She should have gone for soft Brexit from the off, using her capital to face down the ERG at the outset rather than squandering it on the GE
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
How do you do so when the person isn't in the country and there is no knowledge as to where she is.
The answer seems to be that if you can't do it, then the law doesn't allow you to deprive the person of citizenship.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Wasn't it the SNP under Salmond that had confidence and supply from the Unionists? *innocent face*
You may as well get your facts right if you're going with that innocent face guff.
'The SNP initially approached the Lib Dems for a coalition government, but the Lib Dems turned them down.[2] Ultimately, the Greens agreed to provide the numbers to vote in an SNP minority government, with SNP leader Alex Salmond as First Minister'
A straightforward lie, as so often on Wikipedia (which I note you don't mention as your source). The Greens' two MSPs would have made no difference (and if you had actually read the source cited, you would have noted it didn't match the claim). It was Tory tacit (and frequently active) support kept him in power:
That proves the supply part anyway and negates the lies in Wikipedia about the Greens' importance(!). You might be interested to know that in November 2007 Salmond actually changed the rules of the SNP to make it possible. So it was a biggish deal at the time.
I won't hold my breath. You don't like it when people catch you out. Fine, nor do I. But have the courage to fess up for once when you are. The SNP relied on the Tories for everything they achieved in their first term and for the shot at a referendum. I will admit the irony is delicious, although I can see why you don't like being reminded of it.
Edit - incidentally, I said they relied on the Tories for Confidence and Supply, not that they had a confidence and supply arrangement. Which they did. So no, I wasn't lying. You of course, were mistaken. I will be charitable and leave it at that.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
How do you do so when the person isn't in the country and there is no knowledge as to where she is.
That is the potential difficulty, and not being a lawyer I don't know if the HO has potential discretionary powers to strip someone of citizenship in such a case without giving notice.
However, given she was in the media spotlight and journalists clearly were in contact with her I think the Home Office will have a tough time arguing they didn't know and couldn't be expected to know where she was.
The only realistic line is that she is abroad and the FCO does not have consular services where she is, so HMG does not have the capacity to contact her - though even that it pretty weak as I'm sure they could e-mail the letter.
FWIW, I don't think it's a good decision of Javid. Punting the responsibility for her onto a third country that really couldn't have been expected to have anything to do with it and which probably would have denied her citizenship had they known about her case in advance. It also opens the door to other states making like decisions in the future and Britain having weaker ground on which to reject what are essentially foreign criminals thrust onto it.
There is an argument that she effectively renounced British citizenship when she volunteered to travel to - and give allegiance to - what was, for practical purposes, an unrecognised state (though she did so as a minor and possibly having been groomed for it, albeit that now, as an adult, she seems happy to retain her extreme views). But if we accept that, then the destruction of that state would now leave her stateless, but for the accident of the place of birth of her parents.
What to do? Let her try to return and if she does, arrest her and if the evidence is there, prosecute her. Of course, if the Syrians want to prosecute her first, that should be their right but I expect that they'll have bigger fish to fry and that as with most civil wars, there'll be a period of blind-eye turning to the small fry.
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
Wasn't it the SNP under Salmond that had confidence and supply from the Unionists? *innocent face*
You may as well get your facts right if you're going with that innocent face guff.
'The SNP initially approached the Lib Dems for a coalition government, but the Lib Dems turned them down.[2] Ultimately, the Greens agreed to provide the numbers to vote in an SNP minority government, with SNP leader Alex Salmond as First Minister'
A straightforward lie, as so often on Wikipedia (which I note you don't mention as your source). The Greens' two MSPs would have made no difference (and if you had actually read the source cited, you would have noted it didn't match the claim). It was Tory tacit (and frequently active) support kept him in power:
That proves the supply part anyway and negates the lies in Wikipedia about the Greens' importance(!). You might be interested to know that in November 2007 Salmond actually changed the rules of the SNP to make it possible. So it was a biggish deal at the time.
I won't hold my breath. You don't like it when people catch you out. Fine, nor do I. But have the courage to fess up for once when you are. The SNP relied on the Tories for everything they achieved in their first term and for the shot at a referendum. I will admit the irony is delicious, although I can see why you don't like being reminded of it.
The expert on everything told a lie about confidence and supply.
I couldn't give tuppence about this silly bint from Stratford, but I do care about due process and I want it followed..
Where is it not being followed?
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
AIUI The person being deprived of citizenship is supposed to be given advance notification in writing so they can object. Which appears not to have happened here.
How do you do so when the person isn't in the country and there is no knowledge as to where she is.
That is the potential difficulty, and not being a lawyer I don't know if the HO has potential discretionary powers to strip someone of citizenship in such a case without giving notice.
However, given she was in the media spotlight and journalists clearly were in contact with her I think the Home Office will have a tough time arguing they didn't know and couldn't be expected to know where she was.
The only realistic line is that she is abroad and the FCO does not have consular services where she is, so HMG does not have the capacity to contact her - though even that it pretty weak as I'm sure they could e-mail the letter. ...
The trouble is that, as far as I can see, the Act doesn't say written notice has to be given if practicable or anything like that. It just says written notice has to be given.
A deprival order had to be withdrawn in 2017 because notice hadn't been properly served.
The only realistic line is that she is abroad and the FCO does not have consular services where she is, so HMG does not have the capacity to contact her - though even that it pretty weak as I'm sure they could e-mail the letter.
FWIW, I don't think it's a good decision of Javid. Punting the responsibility for her onto a third country that really couldn't have been expected to have anything to do with it and which probably would have denied her citizenship had they known about her case in advance. It also opens the door to other states making like decisions in the future and Britain having weaker ground on which to reject what are essentially foreign criminals thrust onto it.
There is an argument that she effectively renounced British citizenship when she volunteered to travel to - and give allegiance to - what was, for practical purposes, an unrecognised state (though she did so as a minor and possibly having been groomed for it, albeit that now, as an adult, she seems happy to retain her extreme views). But if we accept that, then the destruction of that state would now leave her stateless, but for the accident of the place of birth of her parents.
What to do? Let her try to return and if she does, arrest her and if the evidence is there, prosecute her. Of course, if the Syrians want to prosecute her first, that should be their right but I expect that they'll have bigger fish to fry and that as with most civil wars, there'll be a period of blind-eye turning to the small fry.
I also think this is a bad decision, and I expect it will be overturned.
What I can't understand is why anyone who joined ISIS and returns isn't immediately charged with treason. The case is open and shut and it means they can be peacefully locked up for good and all. Too many governments seem obsessed with new laws (hello, Mr Blair!) rather than using the extensive powers they have under existing laws.
Oxymoron alert: "...a principled and intellectually coherent position against paying any tax."
Mmm. You might say that but I couldn't possibly comment.
There are quite a few 'libertarians' at my golf club. Fine chaps they are too - unless you park in their space or something and then you feel the sharp end of their tongue.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
Considering the EU have made it crystal clear they want to leave us legally trapped in the backstop (and I have no faith in the idea we can or will unilaterally terminate that) then revocation would be better for now than ratifying that deal.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
We can always reinvoke down the line.
Welcome back to Remain!
Its where I started off.
It's important you understand that this is not a trap that was sprung by the EU catching us unawares with dastardly cunning. All the issues which are presenting themselves now were in existence prior to June 2016. But of course they were hand waved away.
Does this mean that it is impossible to leave? Certainly on ERG's terms; the UK has and had developed all kinds of ties and committments that can't just be cut with a pair of scissors. But not on more sensible terms that were dismissed almost immediately by that well known Leaver/Remainer* Theresa May.
*delete as the mood takes you.
The only thing our xenophobic Remainer/Leaver PM got right in this process is at the very start saying that in order to get a good deal, you had to be prepared to have no deal. That no deal is better than a bad deal.
But she then did zero preparations for no deal, Liam Fox's department has bungled it. This did not need to be the case.
If we end up remaining, that won't end the reasons why we voted to Leave. Either the EU will need to address our concerns and reform, or [more likely] we'll be back here again in the future but this time with a better leader who is prepared to risk no deal to get a good deal.
That'd be better than May's purgatory we're to be cast off into.
But it was a bluff. As we're seeing now and as you have identified. No deal was and is unthinkable. She got that wrong although it sounded great and stiffened the sinews of not a few Little Englanders.
She was bluffing yes. Or lying. Honesty and integrity does not seem to be her strength.
The expert on everything told a lie about confidence and supply.
Almost poetry.
It's the detailed, sophisticated and entirely factual rebuttal that I love about you TUD. It's so good you don't resort to the abusive, false, incoherent and ungrammatical rantings of a tribal fanatic who has been caught out in an error (at least, I'm starting to wonder if it was a deliberate lie, but I can't be bothered to pursue it) but can't bear to admit it.
That wasn't his point and a good reason for not getting your political information from Guido who has an agenda. His point was that if giving support to a foreign power was reason for withdrawing passports why not include those who take up arms for Israel?
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
It is because Israel is viewed in those quarters as a racist state built upon aggressive white colonialism and the oppression of dark-skinned people who are deemed intrinsically inferior.
This is equally why Israel (along with white farmers in Southern Africa and the Trump MAGA movement in the USA) is so loved by white supremacists such as Katie Hopkins.
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend or an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
That wasn't his point and a good reason for not getting your political information from Guido who has an agenda. His point was that if giving support to a foreign power was reason for withdrawing passports why not include those who take up arms for Israel?
Corbyn is saying she should keep her citizenship - the exact opposite of what McDonnell was saying for people fighting for Israel.
These are McDonnell's own words
"Will you be explaining to them that association with those who are intentionally targeting civilians for political ends, or participation in such acts, would involve them in an association with or engaged in, the perpetration of acts that meet the statutory definition of terrorism in the UK?"
So association is strong enough for people serving in Israel but not enough for people joining ISIS?
Why if this is such a great point do we think this comment has been removed from his web site?
Had a dream about the current political situation. I know it was a dream because labour mps who were staying to fight were actually doing something rather than trousering their salary and selling comment to the MSM on how awful it all is. We could kill off both the totemic parties here and start again if they weren't all such self interested greedy idiots. Something that is genuinely not the establishment might be just around the corner if we go take a look. Gilets jaunes, Trump, Tiggers, Brexit, fake news, social media censorship vs free speech. The world is changing and nothing will stop that short of a nuclear exchange and population cull. It's done, get on board the anti New World Order
The expert on everything told a lie about confidence and supply.
Almost poetry.
It's the detailed, sophisticated and entirely factual rebuttal that I love about you TUD. It's so good you don't resort to the abusive, false, incoherent and ungrammatical rantings of a tribal fanatic who has been caught out in an error (at least, I'm starting to wonder if it was a deliberate lie, but I can't be bothered to pursue it) but can't bear to admit it.
Anyway, I have work to do. Have a good morning.
When you do that 'have a good morning' stuff, I always imagine you swishing a cloak aboot yer self and flouncing out the room.
Give it up squire, when you're trying to parse some huge difference between Confidence and Supply and a confidence and supply arrangement, you've disappeared up your own fundament (a familiar route for you I imagine).
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend nor an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
Could you tell me the last time an Israeli blew up kids at an Ariana Grande concert? Thanks!
I'm not sure. They're anti Israeli and anti Saudi Arabian but so am I
I still remember your post attacking me as a supporter of the zionist regime when I couldn't even remember making one post about Israel - this was well before the anti semites took over Labour
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
Incidentally I've never referred to Israel as 'a Zionist regime'. These are the sorts of lazy mistakes your mentor Guido makes which is why most posters don't spend too much time quoting him.
I'm not sure. They're anti Israeli and anti Saudi Arabian but so am I
I still remember your post attacking me as a supporter of the zionist regime when I couldn't even remember making one post about Israel - this was well before the anti semites took over Labour
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
Incidentally I've never referred to Israel as 'a Zionist regime'. These are the sorts of lazy mistakes your mentor Guido makes which is why most posters don't spend too much time quoting him.
What's your opinion of Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara?
When did Chris Williamson complete his rise to press secretary for Corbyn, anyway?
Dunno but he provides plenty of amusement. I particularly liked his latest rant, accusing Ian Austin of being an 'embarrassment to the Labour Party' because of his 'frequent ill-tempered outbursts'.
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend nor an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
Could you tell me the last time an Israeli blew up kids at an Ariana Grande concert? Thanks!
Volunteering for the national military of a UK friend and ally makes you a terrorist? In what universe is that a fair point?
Israel is neither a friend nor an ally of the UK. They are the enemy of some of our enemies and supplier of high tech military products. We don't trust them and they certainly don't trust us.
Could you tell me the last time an Israeli blew up kids at an Ariana Grande concert? Thanks!
When did Chris Williamson complete his rise to press secretary for Corbyn, anyway?
Dunno but he provides plenty of amusement. I particularly liked his latest rant, accusing Ian Austin of being an 'embarrassment to the Labour Party' because of his 'frequent ill-tempered outbursts'.
I wonder what McDonnell - a man with a pretty good grip of what he should say (even if sometimes he says something else) - makes of all of this.
That wasn't his point and a good reason for not getting your political information from Guido who has an agenda. His point was that if giving support to a foreign power was reason for withdrawing passports why not include those who take up arms for Israel?
Corbyn is saying she should keep her citizenship - the exact opposite of what McDonnell was saying for people fighting for Israel.
These are McDonnell's own words
"Will you be explaining to them that association with those who are intentionally targeting civilians for political ends, or participation in such acts, would involve them in an association with or engaged in, the perpetration of acts that meet the statutory definition of terrorism in the UK?"
So association is strong enough for people serving in Israel but not enough for people joining ISIS?
Why if this is such a great point do we think this comment has been removed from his web site?
What part of what he's saying do you disagree with?
She should have gone for soft Brexit from the off, using her capital to face down the ERG at the outset rather than squandering it on the GE
In a sense the WA is the platform for a soft Brexit. The backstop ensures close alignment absent unicorn tech border or NI diverging from the UK.
But if you mean she ought to have declared early for Single Market, I disagree. We cannot pretend that ending FOM was not a big driver of the Leave vote in the referendum. That particular red line of TM's did IMO have to be drawn.
Comments
YouTube have made clear that they think the only way they will be able to abide by the new laws will be to block access to YouTube from EU countries. Many other platforms are facing the same dilemma. If the biggest video hosting network in the world doesn't think it will be able to operate under the new rules there is really no chance any other provider will.
When does Shite Hart Lane II open?
I had tickets for the first match at the new stadium.
I think the most likely course now is May’s deal falls, A50 is extended and we end up revoking either by referendum or unilateral parliamentary action.
I think Parliament and the EU will do everything possible to avoid No Deal, so it won’t happen even if it looks like it will with 48 hours to go.
But hopefully the 'Libertarian' aspect is more interesting than its usual meaning of a principled and intellectually coherent position against paying any tax.
And quite a smart political one at this time.
I for one didn't vote to take back control, to still be subject by the backdoor to SM and CU rules while losing all say in them.
We can always reinvoke down the line.
Starmer only joined the Labour Party shortly before being found a plum seat -- I think he could jump.
But, the best advice is always to stay put. Nothing lasts for ever.
Better: Defections to them
The end of Labour hegemony on the left prevents more opportunities than challenges if you think PV has support there (which it does).
However, to misquote Helen Lovejoy "won't somebody think of the child?"
"Thanks for noticing me".
Just superb.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1098892133803667456
I would have no objection to the courts being involved earlier rather than just on appeal and the Home Secretary maybe petitioning the courts (who could then decide), but that's not the law.
If the law needs changing now seems a very good time to debate that, but its not the Home Secretaries fault for following existing law as it stands today.
They should be left in camps in Hartlepool
If a US national with combat experience in Afghanistan/Iraq moved here and applied for UK citizenship, would you apply the same logic to them?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ill-stop-brexit-extremists-infiltrating-our-party-theresa-may-assures-tories-q3lwbsmwv?shareToken=3d501bfb3bf1278f27cc0cb11e57b175
https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/1098862685247193088
He seems to have glossed over Scottish Labour losing support because it walked hand-in-hand with Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives, and that SLab were probably at their most centrist ifrom 2007 to 2015. Nice to see him agreeing with me though that SLab missed a trick by not becoming the devo max party.
The Home Secretary makes a decision.
That is subject to appeal.
The letter informing the family of the decision included a form to make the appeal and guidance notes for filling it in.
The family are pursuing an appeal.
Where is due process not being followed?
'The SNP initially approached the Lib Dems for a coalition government, but the Lib Dems turned them down.[2] Ultimately, the Greens agreed to provide the numbers to vote in an SNP minority government, with SNP leader Alex Salmond as First Minister'
Does this mean that it is impossible to leave? Certainly on ERG's terms; the UK has and had developed all kinds of ties and committments that can't just be cut with a pair of scissors. But not on more sensible terms that were dismissed almost immediately by that well known Leaver/Remainer* Theresa May.
*delete as the mood takes you.
Fighting for Israel bad
That fair point?
https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-defends-tory-alliance-with-snp-10362783
Iran and Russia aren't. i would expect anyone joining their armed forces to be questioned once they returned, as with anyone fighting the Kurds, but I don't think there's any question of removing citizenship purely for that.
It's basically code for ardent pro-Remainer.
But she then did zero preparations for no deal, Liam Fox's department has bungled it. This did not need to be the case.
If we end up remaining, that won't end the reasons why we voted to Leave. Either the EU will need to address our concerns and reform, or [more likely] we'll be back here again in the future but this time with a better leader who is prepared to risk no deal to get a good deal.
That'd be better than May's purgatory we're to be cast off into.
Why is it that sections of the left are so obsessed about one country?
Yes, I don't get it either.
Javid in his wisdom (a.k.a. seeing some frothing outrage in the tabloids and spotting an opportunity to further his Tory leadership ambitions) decided instead to 'special case' it and thus poured fuel on the fire.
Triggering Corbyn to take the opposite extreme - that we should actively seek to bring her back.
Upshot: because she is one of the 'Bethnal Green girls' whose story was and is particularly interesting to the media, and because of a shallow, self-promoting Home Secretary, she will end up being treated differently to the norm - it could be worse or it could be better, we will see.
Poor show.
However, given she was in the media spotlight and journalists clearly were in contact with her I think the Home Office will have a tough time arguing they didn't know and couldn't be expected to know where she was.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-19/shamima-begum-has-uk-citizenship-revoked-by-british-government-itv-news-learns/
It may just be me but I prefer to read things from people with other viewpoints different to my own to ensure I'm not missing something..
She should have gone for soft Brexit from the off, using her capital to face down the ERG at the outset rather than squandering it on the GE
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/alex-salmond-hypocrisy-former-scottish-tories-leader-annabel-goldie
That proves the supply part anyway and negates the lies in Wikipedia about the Greens' importance(!). You might be interested to know that in November 2007 Salmond actually changed the rules of the SNP to make it possible. So it was a biggish deal at the time.
I won't hold my breath. You don't like it when people catch you out. Fine, nor do I. But have the courage to fess up for once when you are. The SNP relied on the Tories for everything they achieved in their first term and for the shot at a referendum. I will admit the irony is delicious, although I can see why you don't like being reminded of it.
Edit - incidentally, I said they relied on the Tories for Confidence and Supply, not that they had a confidence and supply arrangement. Which they did. So no, I wasn't lying. You of course, were mistaken. I will be charitable and leave it at that.
FWIW, I don't think it's a good decision of Javid. Punting the responsibility for her onto a third country that really couldn't have been expected to have anything to do with it and which probably would have denied her citizenship had they known about her case in advance. It also opens the door to other states making like decisions in the future and Britain having weaker ground on which to reject what are essentially foreign criminals thrust onto it.
There is an argument that she effectively renounced British citizenship when she volunteered to travel to - and give allegiance to - what was, for practical purposes, an unrecognised state (though she did so as a minor and possibly having been groomed for it, albeit that now, as an adult, she seems happy to retain her extreme views). But if we accept that, then the destruction of that state would now leave her stateless, but for the accident of the place of birth of her parents.
What to do? Let her try to return and if she does, arrest her and if the evidence is there, prosecute her. Of course, if the Syrians want to prosecute her first, that should be their right but I expect that they'll have bigger fish to fry and that as with most civil wars, there'll be a period of blind-eye turning to the small fry.
about confidence and supply.
Almost poetry.
A deprival order had to be withdrawn in 2017 because notice hadn't been properly served.
What I can't understand is why anyone who joined ISIS and returns isn't immediately charged with treason. The case is open and shut and it means they can be peacefully locked up for good and all. Too many governments seem obsessed with new laws (hello, Mr Blair!) rather than using the extensive powers they have under existing laws.
There are quite a few 'libertarians' at my golf club. Fine chaps they are too - unless you park in their space or something and then you feel the sharp end of their tongue.
A shame, as you say, it'd otherwise be rather good for dodgy types.
Anyway, I have work to do. Have a good morning.
This is equally why Israel (along with white farmers in Southern Africa and the Trump MAGA movement in the USA) is so loved by white supremacists such as Katie Hopkins.
Same coin, two sides.
These are McDonnell's own words
"Will you be explaining to them that association with those who are intentionally targeting civilians for political ends, or participation in such acts, would involve them in an association with or engaged in, the perpetration of acts that meet the statutory definition of terrorism in the UK?"
So association is strong enough for people serving in Israel but not enough for people joining ISIS?
Why if this is such a great point do we think this comment has been removed from his web site?
We could kill off both the totemic parties here and start again if they weren't all such self interested greedy idiots.
Something that is genuinely not the establishment might be just around the corner if we go take a look.
Gilets jaunes, Trump, Tiggers, Brexit, fake news, social media censorship vs free speech. The world is changing and nothing will stop that short of a nuclear exchange and population cull.
It's done, get on board the anti New World Order
Give it up squire, when you're trying to parse some huge difference between Confidence and Supply and a confidence and supply arrangement, you've disappeared up your own fundament (a familiar route for you I imagine).
A Balls up by the man himself.
But if you mean she ought to have declared early for Single Market, I disagree. We cannot pretend that ending FOM was not a big driver of the Leave vote in the referendum. That particular red line of TM's did IMO have to be drawn.