What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
Brexit will not affect Irish citizenship law, which is based on the Irish constitution of 1937. Irish law granted citizenship by ius soli to all those born on the island of Ireland (with the usual exception for the children of diplomats) and by ius sanguinis to all those with a parent born on the island of Ireland. Further, children of Irish citizens not born on the island of Ireland may claim Irish citizenship by registration, but the citizenship thus claimed is only operable from the date of registration, so if as a family you want to keep transmitting Irish citizenship down the generations you need to make sure each generation has registered their claim before they themselves have children.
The biggest amendment to the above was by the the 27th Amendment to the Irish constitution in 2004 which limits the application of the ius soli rule to those born on the island of Ireland to be limited to only those with at least one parent who is themselves an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen. The amendment allowed for further inclusons to be provided by law, and the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 specifically included children born on the island of Ireland with at least one British citizen parent as qualifying for Irish citizenship from birth.
Yes, that's my reading. A pregnant British citizen can go to Belfast, have the kid, and then the kid gets an EU passport.
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
By an EU passport you mean a passport of a member state? They'll have to be eligible for one of those nationalities to get it.
Yes, I that's what I mean. I'm amazed I have to spell it out. The debate has gone a bit further than that
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
By an EU passport you mean a passport of a member state? They'll have to be eligible for one of those nationalities to get it.
Yes, I that's what I mean. I'm amazed I have to spell it out. The debate has gone a bit further than that
The Brexit process should have no bearing on their ability to get one of those nationalities. They are either eligible or not.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
The subsamples referred to on here on Saturday evening showed Labour leading theTories by 13% in the seats the party lost in December 2019. As always , such samples ought to be viewed with caution due to the small size involved, but for what it is worth such an outcome would imply a swing from Con to Lab in those seats of circa 10.5% - compared with a GB swing of 4%. On the basis of UNS , that would see Labour recovering 50 of the 53 seats lost last year to the Tories.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
Except that, if the pregnant mother goes to Belfast, and has the baby, bingo, the baby is a UK AND an EU citizen, by birth. As we have just established.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
Brexit will not affect Irish citizenship law, which is based on the Irish constitution of 1937. Irish law granted citizenship by ius soli to all those born on the island of Ireland (with the usual exception for the children of diplomats) and by ius sanguinis to all those with a parent born on the island of Ireland. Further, children of Irish citizens not born on the island of Ireland may claim Irish citizenship by registration, but the citizenship thus claimed is only operable from the date of registration, so if as a family you want to keep transmitting Irish citizenship down the generations you need to make sure each generation has registered their claim before they themselves have children.
The biggest amendment to the above was by the the 27th Amendment to the Irish constitution in 2004 which limits the application of the ius soli rule to those born on the island of Ireland to be limited to only those with at least one parent who is themselves an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen. The amendment allowed for further inclusons to be provided by law, and the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 specifically included children born on the island of Ireland with at least one British citizen parent as qualifying for Irish citizenship from birth.
Yes, that's my reading. A pregnant British citizen can go to Belfast, have the kid, and then the kid gets an EU passport.
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
Of course, the Brexiters on PB keep telling us the EU won't survive for long ... tdhere's no point in the bairn having an EU passport if mummy and daddy still have to queue in the non-EU channel. Could be worth it once it becomes 16 or so, but the wean might not be interested in anything that makes the EU passport useful.
Starmer is going to negate this culture war problem - but only if he can keep his MPs in line. He's clearly got the ability.
Not sure there are many culture warriors in the PLP outside the nutters of the far left, all which are being rapidly marginalised by Starmer's clean up.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
Except that, if the pregnant mother goes to Belfast, and has the baby, bingo, the baby is a UK AND an EU citizen, by birth. As we have just established.
By virtue of being able to get an Irish passport? If so that's been the case for a while, and will continue to be the case.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
Brexit will not affect Irish citizenship law, which is based on the Irish constitution of 1937. Irish law granted citizenship by ius soli to all those born on the island of Ireland (with the usual exception for the children of diplomats) and by ius sanguinis to all those with a parent born on the island of Ireland. Further, children of Irish citizens not born on the island of Ireland may claim Irish citizenship by registration, but the citizenship thus claimed is only operable from the date of registration, so if as a family you want to keep transmitting Irish citizenship down the generations you need to make sure each generation has registered their claim before they themselves have children.
The biggest amendment to the above was by the the 27th Amendment to the Irish constitution in 2004 which limits the application of the ius soli rule to those born on the island of Ireland to be limited to only those with at least one parent who is themselves an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen. The amendment allowed for further inclusons to be provided by law, and the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 specifically included children born on the island of Ireland with at least one British citizen parent as qualifying for Irish citizenship from birth.
Yes, that's my reading. A pregnant British citizen can go to Belfast, have the kid, and then the kid gets an EU passport.
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
Of course, the Brexiters on PB keep telling us the EU won't survive for long ... tdhere's no point in the bairn having an EU passport if mummy and daddy still have to queue in the non-EU channel. Could be worth it once it becomes 16 or so, but the wean might not be interested in anything that makes the EU passport useful.
I think several EU countries make it easier for non-EU citizens to get residency, or even citizenship, if the child is already an EU citizen.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
Except that, if the pregnant mother goes to Belfast, and has the baby, bingo, the baby is a UK AND an EU citizen, by birth. As we have just established.
Yes, obviously. That is covered in the scenario in my second sentence. Or they can buy a passport from Cyprus or somewhere like that. I believe that is the preferred route for wealthy Brexit supporters.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Take nothing for granted. If both parties camp on the same ground then it comes down to "don't rock the boat" vs "time for a change" and the latter can be very powerful after 14 years of office.
Those two clips of Starmer downthread are very strong indeed. The combination of nuance with absolute clarity feels like something that has been missing from British politics for a very, very long time and if he can make a habit of that, he's got a brilliant chance.
Nor a touch of the oxymorons. Contra many of the bedwetting Unwokies here, the vast, vast majority of those alluded to are enthusiastic amateurs rather than trained, culture war Ninjas.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
I hear you, LadyG, agree with you on both counts. Note that Georgia also used to feature the Confederate flag on its state flag (you can see it on old "Matlock" reruns) but it was removed in 2001.
Why was it put on these state flags? Partly our of pride of tradition, but mostly and chiefly to send the message loud and clear: this is White man's country, boy, and don't you ever forget it!
Well, more and more and more and more folks are saying: to hell with that shit!!!
We're judging the past by the present again. These symbols were probably granted to the southern states in an attempt to smoothe over relations after what had been an exhausting and extremely bitter war.
You don;t completely humiliate those you defeat if you want them to be your fellow citizens again. Which of course the North did.
Many confederate soldiers fought under that flag because it was the flag of their country, not because it was 'pro-slavery'. Slavery wasn;t an issue as they owned no slaves.
I'm not saying these flags should be flown now, but why they were around until recently was at least explainable.
Nobody "granted" these symbols to Southern states, they adopted them THEMSELVES by actions of state & local governments that had been purged of Blacks by denying them the right to vote, despite the 15th Amendment.
You are correct that the North did NOT protest this, because they did want to bury the hatchet. The White South also wanted to bury the hatchet . . . in the backs of Black folk.
Sure, most Confederate soldiers did NOT own slaves, though interesting Confederate Armies made a practice when invading the North (Antietam 1862, Gettysburg 1863) of seizing Black and enslaving the few Blacks they encountered up there, on the grounds that they "must" be escaped slaves.
Boys giving the Rebel Yell on many a battlefield believed they were defending their country (conceived as their state NOT the Confederacy as a whole) and their way of life. Just so happens that slavery was THE defining characteristic, and the source of the division that caused the war.
Further note that Mississippi put the Confederate flag on their state banner in the 1890s to signify the triumph of Jim Crow. And Georgia adopted it in the 1950s as direct response to the Civil Rights Movement.
Personally admire pride in the amazing feats of arms achieved by the boys in butternut between 1861-65. BUT the roots of these flags was NOT that; they were adopted not to honor granddaddy's exploits on the battlefield - they were flown as symbols of White Power.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
You are deluded. He is not a leader. A game show host, but not a leader. He is the mini Trump. He has struggled to capitalise on his good fortune in winning an election against a very weak LoTO. He will continue to struggle .
The Tories best bet is to think of someone with better leadership ability to take over when Johnson eventually and inevitably realises that his dream job is actually rather harder work than writing a few polemics a week. The problem for the Tories is that most of the genuine believers in Brexit are as thick as mince. Under the Cummings regime you have to be a believer, or be like Johnson and make a great pretence of being so.
Didn't Starmer in a previous life used to take legal action against the plod?
I'm sure he would have done. But BLM are just Corbynista-types cynically jumping on a band-wagon, so you can't expect anything remotely connected with reality from them.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Well it worked for Theresa May... oh, wait...
Her attempts to be populist were so wooden and inept that she ended up looking almost antipopulist. Grammar schools and fox-hunting? Those aren't effective wedge issues that fire up the passions and mobilize large voting blocs. Boris does it so much better.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Byron Burger has filed a notice to appoint administrators, as it tries to protect the restaurant chain from creditors while it seeks a rescue deal. The chain has 1,200 staff and 52 restaurants across the UK. Sources confirmed that the Byron Burger board still remain hopeful that it can be sold as a "going concern".
Starmer is going to negate this culture war problem - but only if he can keep his MPs in line. He's clearly got the ability.
Not sure there are many culture warriors in the PLP outside the nutters of the far left, all which are being rapidly marginalised by Starmer's clean up.
I almost feel sorry for the new Corbynite intake, who face either adjusting their values and behaviours, choosing a short career in parliament, or are to find out why Corbyn spent 3 decades on the backbenches. He was happy there, but I don't know about some of them.
Didn't Starmer in a previous life used to take legal action against the plod?
I'm sure he would have done. But BLM are just Corbynista-types cynically jumping on a band-wagon, so you can't expect anything remotely connected with reality from them.
Who could have guessed the same people who on their goFundMe page ranted about dismantling imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures, might be a bit erhhh hmmm extreme.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
There is no such thing as an EU passport
You know what I mean.
But it is important. You apply for citizenship with another country not with the EU. How each EU country runs it's citizenship programme is up to that country, and they vary greatly. The EU states that eg Germany cannot treat citizens of other EU countries differently i.e. they cannot treat French citizens different from Danish citizens, but once the Brexit interim period is over Germany would be within their rights to say. Nope, no more British people can get citizenship. E.g. Germany treats Turkish citizens slightly different from people form other countries, becausre there are so many Turkish citizens who have grown up in Germany.
The most likely thing which Germany will do after the Brexit interim Period is to insist that new Britons taking up German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship. That was why I went out of my way to get German citizenship as soon as I was legally allowed to.
You can watch it as an attack on "Woke" or as a piss-take of how a gammon will typically attack "Woke".
The latter is slightly more difficult to detect but I am pleased to report I managed it.
It isn't the latter. He is most definitely anti-Woke, both the character and the writers behind it. It is a recurring theme in his videos and his stand-up show, both Tom Walker and Andrew Doyle are left wing anti-wokers and have been for years.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Yes I do.
Because I believe free trade is the right thing to do in principle.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Byron Burger has filed a notice to appoint administrators, as it tries to protect the restaurant chain from creditors while it seeks a rescue deal. The chain has 1,200 staff and 52 restaurants across the UK. Sources confirmed that the Byron Burger board still remain hopeful that it can be sold as a "going concern".
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Well it worked for Theresa May... oh, wait...
Her attempts to be populist were so wooden and inept that she ended up looking almost antipopulist. Grammar schools and fox-hunting? Those aren't effective wedge issues that fire up the passions and mobilize large voting blocs. Boris does it so much better.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
Yes, but the trouble with this is that if the government's anticipated spending splurge (or socialist economic platform) actually happens it will inevitably lead to division within the Tory party, along the lines of "dry vs. wet" from the old days - maybe not immediately because of Covid, but within a year or two.
There are still an awful lot of Tory MPs, members and voters who prize fiscal discipline and sound money above all else. They will turn against reckless spending, and the Thatcherites will be reborn. Can't wait.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
Except that, if the pregnant mother goes to Belfast, and has the baby, bingo, the baby is a UK AND an EU citizen, by birth. As we have just established.
By virtue of being able to get an Irish passport? If so that's been the case for a while, and will continue to be the case.
Yes, but my point is, until the end of this year, and for the last 40-odd years, being born anywhere in Britain gave you all the rights of a British citizen AND an EU citizen
From Jan 1st, you have to get yourself born in Northern Ireland to enjoy that unique status. For the price of a ferry across the Irish say, and a few nights in a Derry hospital, that might be appealing to many ambitious parents
Starmer has absolutely destroyed the concept he is "woke" in one day, extraordinary scenes.
Nah, it is more the likes of BLM, same as the eco-nutters, nothing short of total Marxist revolution is enough. That is why left wing types like David Baddiel are also getting it in the neck.
You can watch it as an attack on "Woke" or as a piss-take of how a gammon will typically attack "Woke".
The latter is slightly more difficult to detect but I am pleased to report I managed it.
It isn't the latter. He is most definitely anti-Woke, both the character and the writers behind it. It is a recurring theme in his videos and his stand-up show, both Tom Walker and Andrew Doyle are left wing anti-wokers and have been for years.
Yes, Pie hates Woke, as anyone who watches him regularly well knows. Kinabalu hasn't a clue
Starmer has absolutely destroyed the concept he is "woke" in one day, extraordinary scenes.
The woke will vote for him regardless in most areas, with minor leakage to LDs and Greens. And as with the RLB situation, he can now be pretty darn woke and not seem like he is super woke by pointing to this.
Byron Burger has filed a notice to appoint administrators, as it tries to protect the restaurant chain from creditors while it seeks a rescue deal. The chain has 1,200 staff and 52 restaurants across the UK. Sources confirmed that the Byron Burger board still remain hopeful that it can be sold as a "going concern".
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Take nothing for granted. If both parties camp on the same ground then it comes down to "don't rock the boat" vs "time for a change" and the latter can be very powerful after 14 years of office.
Of course one should never take anything for granted.
But it's much, much harder for Labour to move right on culture than it is for the Tories to move left on the economy - and the cultural shift required is much larger than the economic one.
Starmer is doing his best by observing Armed Forces Day and - having suddenly realized what he was letting himself in for by uncritically embracing BLM - distancing himself from defunding the police. But the fact is that the left's MPs, members, journalists, and activists are utterly wedded to identity politics and nothing will induce them from plunging headlong into that cul-de-sac.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
There is no such thing as an EU passport
You know what I mean.
But it is important. You apply for citizenship with another country not with the EU. How each EU country runs it's citizenship programme is up to that country, and they vary greatly. The EU states that eg Germany cannot treat citizens of other EU countries differently i.e. they cannot treat French citizens different from Danish citizens, but once the Brexit interim period is over Germany would be within their rights to say. Nope, no more British people can get citizenship. E.g. Germany treats Turkish citizens slightly different from people form other countries, becausre there are so many Turkish citizens who have grown up in Germany.
The most likely thing which Germany will do after the Brexit interim Period is to insist that new Britons taking up German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship. That was why I went out of my way to get German citizenship as soon as I was legally allowed to.
I'll just do blackface, tell Mrs Merkel I'm a lesbian Syrian, and bingo. Wilkommen
Starmer has absolutely destroyed the concept he is "woke" in one day, extraordinary scenes.
The woke will vote for him regardless in most areas, with minor leakage to LDs and Greens. And as with the RLB situation, he can now be pretty darn woke and not seem like he is super woke by pointing to this.
Its like saying Jezza wasn't eco enough....as the XR lot chained themselves to his fence because he wasn't "pure enough" in their eyes.
Didn't Starmer in a previous life used to take legal action against the plod?
I'm sure he would have done. But BLM are just Corbynista-types cynically jumping on a band-wagon, so you can't expect anything remotely connected with reality from them.
Who could have guessed the same people who on their goFundMe page ranted about dismantling imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures, might be a bit erhhh hmmm extreme.
Did we ever work out who’s behind that page, and where the million pounds they’ve raised has gone?
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
Except that, if the pregnant mother goes to Belfast, and has the baby, bingo, the baby is a UK AND an EU citizen, by birth. As we have just established.
If a Brazilian woman went to Northern Ireland to have a baby that baby would automatically qualify for Irish citizenship. But AFAIU the UK does not consider being born in the UK sufficient grounds alone to get UK citizenship.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Because Brexit Believer = Not that bright
Actually I gave an answer at the same time that was different. Funny that!
Though "not that bright" says the person who is so dim he can't understand that nationalism can be a virtue and not a vice and only sees one side of a coin. As I said to you earlier today when you ranted it can of course at extremes be evil - as can most philosophies at extremes, but moderately it can be quite viruous. All things in moderation as they say.
Didn't Starmer in a previous life used to take legal action against the plod?
I'm sure he would have done. But BLM are just Corbynista-types cynically jumping on a band-wagon, so you can't expect anything remotely connected with reality from them.
Who could have guessed the same people who on their goFundMe page ranted about dismantling imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures, might be a bit erhhh hmmm extreme.
Did we ever work out who’s behind that page, and where the million pounds they’ve raised has gone?
If I had given money I would be rather concerned....
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Yes.
What part do you disagree with and why?
Can't be arsed, frankly. You're as bad as HYUFD for dragging folk down your reductive 'logical conclusion' rabbit holes.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Yes.
What part do you disagree with and why?
Can't be arsed, frankly. You're as bad as HYUFD for dragging folk down your reductive 'logical conclusion' rabbit holes.
Best to ignore that one mate, complete waste of time and energy arguing with somebody so brainwashed
Her attempts to be populist were so wooden and inept that she ended up looking almost antipopulist. Grammar schools and fox-hunting? Those aren't effective wedge issues that fire up the passions and mobilize large voting blocs. Boris does it so much better.
Possibly, although everyone seems to have forgotten that Theresa May was extremely popular right up until the early part of the 2017 GE campaign, including with the Red Wall voters. I expect the popularity of Boris to continue falling rapidly - his style is getting repetitive and will begin to grate, his policies are all over the place, implementation is abysmal, he promises everything to everyone but doesn't seem to care about delivery, his cabinet comprises mainly numpties, the coronavirus fallout is going to be bad both economically and socially, and he doesn't seem to have the slightest clue how to get out of the Brexit straitjacket he's tied himself into. Even those bits of the coronavirus fallout which aren't his fault are likely to be blamed on him.
Meanwhile Labour has a competent leader, albeit not great - his Today interview this morning was very poor. But he'll do.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
There is no such thing as an EU passport
You know what I mean.
But it is important. You apply for citizenship with another country not with the EU. How each EU country runs it's citizenship programme is up to that country, and they vary greatly. The EU states that eg Germany cannot treat citizens of other EU countries differently i.e. they cannot treat French citizens different from Danish citizens, but once the Brexit interim period is over Germany would be within their rights to say. Nope, no more British people can get citizenship. E.g. Germany treats Turkish citizens slightly different from people form other countries, becausre there are so many Turkish citizens who have grown up in Germany.
The most likely thing which Germany will do after the Brexit interim Period is to insist that new Britons taking up German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship. That was why I went out of my way to get German citizenship as soon as I was legally allowed to.
I'll just do blackface, tell Mrs Merkel I'm a lesbian Syrian, and bingo. Wilkommen
You'd be on the first plane back home as international underwear models do not qualify a assylum seekers.
Despite progress in some countries, he said the pandemic was speeding up and the world would need even greater stores of resilience, patience and generosity in the months ahead.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Yes I do.
Because I believe free trade is the right thing to do in principle.
Thanks. So you think Britain should enter into free trade agreements regardless of whether they help Britain.
What is the principle behind them which you think so important?
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Yes I do.
Because I believe free trade is the right thing to do in principle.
😂😂😂
Oh please tell us what contribution you make to global trade. I think even The Disgraced ex GP Liam Fox knows more about international business than you do Philip, and that is a pretty low bar!
Her attempts to be populist were so wooden and inept that she ended up looking almost antipopulist. Grammar schools and fox-hunting? Those aren't effective wedge issues that fire up the passions and mobilize large voting blocs. Boris does it so much better.
Possibly, although everyone seems to have forgotten that Theresa May was extremely popular right up until the early part of the 2017 GE campaign, including with the Red Wall voters. I expect the popularity of Boris to continue falling rapidly - his style is getting repetitive and will begin to grate, his policies are all over the place, implementation is abysmal, he promises everything to everyone but doesn't seem to care about delivery, his cabinet comprises mainly numpties, the coronavirus fallout is going to be bad both economically and socially, and he doesn't seem to have the slightest clue how to get out of the Brexit straitjacket he's tied himself into. Even those bits of the coronavirus fallout which aren't his fault are likely to be blamed on him.
Meanwhile Labour has a competent leader, albeit not great - his Today interview this morning was very poor. But he'll do.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
They lost their EU rights along with the rest of us. That's why a lot of us are mightily pissed off at the people who did it to us. Do keep up.
I'm not trying to have a Brexit argument, I'm trying to elucidate an area of law, which seems a little grey: the rights of British babies born in the UK before Brexit, and babies born in Ireland/Ni and then the rest of the EU after Brexit
I am doing it for a relative, who is pregnant, and quite keen to get an EU passport for her child, for complex reasons
A baby is in the same situation as the rest of us. If they are eligible for a passport of an EU member state then they can get one. Brexit has no effect on that except to make the UK no longer an EU member state, so if the baby is eligible only for a UK passport then they are fucked from a being an EU citizen POV.
Except that, if the pregnant mother goes to Belfast, and has the baby, bingo, the baby is a UK AND an EU citizen, by birth. As we have just established.
If a Brazilian woman went to Northern Ireland to have a baby that baby would automatically qualify for Irish citizenship. But AFAIU the UK does not consider being born in the UK sufficient grounds alone to get UK citizenship.
Frankly unless Johnson manages to not have destroyed the economy or cocked up Brexit (the former he didn't cause but he's responsible for getting us out of, the latter he very much did), I just do not see how he manages to increase his majority. He had pretty much all of the stars lined up in 2019 and he isn't going to get that again.
The polls already show his majority having fallen and he's on borderline Hung Parliament territory. He's had his most popular moment and I think it's now slowly downhill for him.
That new and fresh thing is slowly being replaced by "us and them" which Starmer is going to exploit, the fact he's not Jeremy Corbyn, the fact Brexit is over and is a reason a lot voted Tory (and they weren't happy about it, it seems), to me means the next election is possibly going to result in a very slim Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
There is no stability pact in Britain. Scotland doesn't have to turn a buck. England at least has to try.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
Nothing. It's the same in Devon/Cornwall, and probably other parts of the UK, further from London, with fewer BAME citizens. Very few cases, very few deaths.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Take nothing for granted. If both parties camp on the same ground then it comes down to "don't rock the boat" vs "time for a change" and the latter can be very powerful after 14 years of office.
Of course one should never take anything for granted.
But it's much, much harder for Labour to move right on culture than it is for the Tories to move left on the economy - and the cultural shift required is much larger than the economic one.
Starmer is doing his best by observing Armed Forces Day and - having suddenly realized what he was letting himself in for by uncritically embracing BLM - distancing himself from defunding the police. But the fact is that the left's MPs, members, journalists, and activists are utterly wedded to identity politics and nothing will induce them from plunging headlong into that cul-de-sac.
Hence the opportunity.
But if the Tories move left on the economy they will lose a lot of their 'natural' supporters, and it will lead to divisions within the party. It may help them with the Blue Wall seats, but could lose them a lot of support in the shires and southern towns, where they are both culturally and economically right wing.
Both main parties have a very difficult conundrum to resolve - which resolves it the best will determine what happens in 2024.
Her attempts to be populist were so wooden and inept that she ended up looking almost antipopulist. Grammar schools and fox-hunting? Those aren't effective wedge issues that fire up the passions and mobilize large voting blocs. Boris does it so much better.
Possibly, although everyone seems to have forgotten that Theresa May was extremely popular right up until the early part of the 2017 GE campaign, including with the Red Wall voters. I expect the popularity of Boris to continue falling rapidly - his style is getting repetitive and will begin to grate, his policies are all over the place, implementation is abysmal, he promises everything to everyone but doesn't seem to care about delivery, his cabinet comprises mainly numpties, the coronavirus fallout is going to be bad both economically and socially, and he doesn't seem to have the slightest clue how to get out of the Brexit straitjacket he's tied himself into. Even those bits of the coronavirus fallout which aren't his fault are likely to be blamed on him.
Meanwhile Labour has a competent leader, albeit not great - his Today interview this morning was very poor. But he'll do.
Yeah there's been a lot of post-election revisionism on May but she was indeed extremely popular and her strategy of the red wall was pretty much identical to Johnson's. She would likely have received the same result as him, had she not even bothered to campaign. Campaigning exposed her.
Ironically, the 2017 polls before the election, were pretty much spot on for what the outcome of the 2019 election would be. The election the Tories wanted in 2017, was the election they did get in 2019.
They aren't going to get that election ever again.
I thought it read like a pastiche Cummings blog post, with its clever dick references to obscure brainiacs straight from the kick-off with Gramsci and scattered throughout the speech.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Take nothing for granted. If both parties camp on the same ground then it comes down to "don't rock the boat" vs "time for a change" and the latter can be very powerful after 14 years of office.
Of course one should never take anything for granted.
But it's much, much harder for Labour to move right on culture than it is for the Tories to move left on the economy - and the cultural shift required is much larger than the economic one.
Starmer is doing his best by observing Armed Forces Day and - having suddenly realized what he was letting himself in for by uncritically embracing BLM - distancing himself from defunding the police. But the fact is that the left's MPs, members, journalists, and activists are utterly wedded to identity politics and nothing will induce them from plunging headlong into that cul-de-sac.
Hence the opportunity.
But if the Tories move left on the economy they will lose a lot of their 'natural' supporters, and it will lead to divisions within the party. It may help them with the Blue Wall seats, but could lose them a lot of support in the shires and southern towns, where they are both culturally and economically right wing.
Both main parties have a very difficult conundrum to resolve - which resolves it the best will determine what happens in 2024.
IMHO, this is why the Lib Dems need to tack to the right, not the left. They need to be seen to moderate Starmer, not move the Tories more rightwards.
The two parties would really do well to form an unofficial pact.
Didn't Starmer in a previous life used to take legal action against the plod?
I'm sure he would have done. But BLM are just Corbynista-types cynically jumping on a band-wagon, so you can't expect anything remotely connected with reality from them.
Who could have guessed the same people who on their goFundMe page ranted about dismantling imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures, might be a bit erhhh hmmm extreme.
Did we ever work out who’s behind that page, and where the million pounds they’ve raised has gone?
If I had given money I would be rather concerned....
Presumably, GoFundMe’s compliance department has had a busy weekend?
I’m - perhaps naively - assuming that they won’t simply pay out to a random bank account, but rather need to see a registered charity or company with an account in their name?
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
How many prisoners do you think they'll execute before the next election? Not that I am suggesting betting on that, which would be Highly Improper.
Edit: And myriads of foxes, properly killed from horseback.
You put your finger on something important. It's good to do this sometimes to check it's still there. But seriously, you do, because of course they will not be bringing back capital punishment or fox hunting or anything of the kind. It's mainly about rhetoric and tone and subliminal association.
The Tories = patriotic, traditional, strong, sensible, chilled.
Labour = wimpy, new fangled, effete, degenerate, uptight.
Starmer's challenge is to make the above look absurd. If he can, Labour will romp it next time since they have won all the big arguments on the economy. Nobody admits to still believing in free markets and sound money - not even the Tories.
I almost feel like they've been hacked - or that is the excuse they will use.
They've lost my respect really, even if I agree with the fundamental ideas of systemic racism.
If they've been hacked they've been hacked for two days now. And don't seem at all concerned.
They've not been hacked. They've either become wildly overconfident and emboldened, and gone too far - or, more likely, they are hardened Marxists and they just don't care. This is what they really think.
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Take nothing for granted. If both parties camp on the same ground then it comes down to "don't rock the boat" vs "time for a change" and the latter can be very powerful after 14 years of office.
Of course one should never take anything for granted.
But it's much, much harder for Labour to move right on culture than it is for the Tories to move left on the economy - and the cultural shift required is much larger than the economic one.
Starmer is doing his best by observing Armed Forces Day and - having suddenly realized what he was letting himself in for by uncritically embracing BLM - distancing himself from defunding the police. But the fact is that the left's MPs, members, journalists, and activists are utterly wedded to identity politics and nothing will induce them from plunging headlong into that cul-de-sac.
Hence the opportunity.
But if the Tories move left on the economy they will lose a lot of their 'natural' supporters, and it will lead to divisions within the party. It may help them with the Blue Wall seats, but could lose them a lot of support in the shires and southern towns, where they are both culturally and economically right wing.
Both main parties have a very difficult conundrum to resolve - which resolves it the best will determine what happens in 2024.
Cultural issues probably get the Conservatives more votes than economic ones these days. So long as they don't face swingeing tax rises, most shire Conservatives aren't that bothered if the government tacks left economically.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Yes.
What part do you disagree with and why?
Can't be arsed, frankly. You're as bad as HYUFD for dragging folk down your reductive 'logical conclusion' rabbit holes.
I almost feel like they've been hacked - or that is the excuse they will use.
They've lost my respect really, even if I agree with the fundamental ideas of systemic racism.
If they've been hacked they've been hacked for two days now. And don't seem at all concerned.
They've not been hacked. They've either become wildly overconfident and emboldened, and gone too far - or, more likely, they are hardened Marxists and they just don't care. This is what they really think.
Fair enough, I did say it was the excuse they will use.
I don't want to associate myself with them, as I don't agree with what they're saying now. I do agree with the general point that black lives matter but this is not the way to deliver it.
Starmer is the only politician who will actually make their lives better, because he is the only one who can become Prime Minister. We really need to get behind him on the left and accept that maybe we can't have exactly what we want but perhaps some change is better than none at all?
Essentially saying the Cons best chance for winning again is on a socialistic economic platform combined with reactionary social policy.
In other words, whip up the culture war and place themselves firmly on the side of "traditional values".
Rings true to me. I think this might prove to be the best lens through which to view the words and actions of Johnson & Co.
It's been clear for some time that going right on culture and (somewhat) left on economics is the golden ticket in the current British political climate.
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
Take nothing for granted. If both parties camp on the same ground then it comes down to "don't rock the boat" vs "time for a change" and the latter can be very powerful after 14 years of office.
Of course one should never take anything for granted.
But it's much, much harder for Labour to move right on culture than it is for the Tories to move left on the economy - and the cultural shift required is much larger than the economic one.
Starmer is doing his best by observing Armed Forces Day and - having suddenly realized what he was letting himself in for by uncritically embracing BLM - distancing himself from defunding the police. But the fact is that the left's MPs, members, journalists, and activists are utterly wedded to identity politics and nothing will induce them from plunging headlong into that cul-de-sac.
Hence the opportunity.
But if the Tories move left on the economy they will lose a lot of their 'natural' supporters, and it will lead to divisions within the party. It may help them with the Blue Wall seats, but could lose them a lot of support in the shires and southern towns, where they are both culturally and economically right wing.
Both main parties have a very difficult conundrum to resolve - which resolves it the best will determine what happens in 2024.
Lose them to whom? I'm one of those 'right on everything' Tories (obviously), but as long as they don't massively hike my taxes they're not going to lose my vote if they borrow more, invest in infrastructure etc. However harmless Starmer tries to appear, he's not going to offer lower taxes than the Tories, and there's no party offering economic dryness - even Farage's vehicles shut up about the subject once they realized how small the market for it is, and it looks as if the Lib Dems will be shifting even further left in the future, so they won't be much of an alternative either.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Because Brexit Believer = Not that bright
Actually I gave an answer at the same time that was different. Funny that!
Though "not that bright" says the person who is so dim he can't understand that nationalism can be a virtue and not a vice and only sees one side of a coin. As I said to you earlier today when you ranted it can of course at extremes be evil - as can most philosophies at extremes, but moderately it can be quite viruous. All things in moderation as they say.
Good try 😂 , but no cigar Philip. Boy you do try hard at understanding this stuff, I'll give you that. On a serious note, nationalism cannot be a virtue, as it is fundamentally divisive, and is based on lies and falsehoods. It is the ugly sister to patriotism . Patriotic resistance to oppression (eg. French resistance to Nazis, some might even point to Irish resistance) is very very different to the racist nationalist nonsense spouted by Brexiteers and Scots nats. The latter two try to justify their position with all sorts of excuses, falsely claim oppression and grievance (when so often they are the oppressors) but underneath it is just based on fundamental hatred of the outsider, and that is why both "philosophies" are predominantly dim witted. Sorry old chap!
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
Comments
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
Edit: And myriads of foxes, properly killed from horseback.
It would require a change of government to achieve a single market deal with the EU
And I am not against the idea, just it will not happen under Boris
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
If Boris can camp successfully on that ground, you won't get him out before 2030...
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53222181
Contra many of the bedwetting Unwokies here, the vast, vast majority of those alluded to are enthusiastic amateurs rather than trained, culture war Ninjas.
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Hodges is a political journalist FFS.
You are correct that the North did NOT protest this, because they did want to bury the hatchet. The White South also wanted to bury the hatchet . . . in the backs of Black folk.
Sure, most Confederate soldiers did NOT own slaves, though interesting Confederate Armies made a practice when invading the North (Antietam 1862, Gettysburg 1863) of seizing Black and enslaving the few Blacks they encountered up there, on the grounds that they "must" be escaped slaves.
Boys giving the Rebel Yell on many a battlefield believed they were defending their country (conceived as their state NOT the Confederacy as a whole) and their way of life. Just so happens that slavery was THE defining characteristic, and the source of the division that caused the war.
Further note that Mississippi put the Confederate flag on their state banner in the 1890s to signify the triumph of Jim Crow. And Georgia adopted it in the 1950s as direct response to the Civil Rights Movement.
Personally admire pride in the amazing feats of arms achieved by the boys in butternut between 1861-65. BUT the roots of these flags was NOT that; they were adopted not to honor granddaddy's exploits on the battlefield - they were flown as symbols of White Power.
The Tories best bet is to think of someone with better leadership ability to take over when Johnson eventually and inevitably realises that his dream job is actually rather harder work than writing a few polemics a week. The problem for the Tories is that most of the genuine believers in Brexit are as thick as mince. Under the Cummings regime you have to be a believer, or be like Johnson and make a great pretence of being so.
https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277622310141415430?s=20
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
Byron Burger has filed a notice to appoint administrators, as it tries to protect the restaurant chain from creditors while it seeks a rescue deal.
The chain has 1,200 staff and 52 restaurants across the UK.
Sources confirmed that the Byron Burger board still remain hopeful that it can be sold as a "going concern".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53222949
You can watch it as an attack on "Woke" or as a piss-take of how a gammon will typically attack "Woke".
The latter is slightly more difficult to detect but I am pleased to report I managed it.
The most likely thing which Germany will do after the Brexit interim Period is to insist that new Britons taking up German citizenship will have to give up their UK citizenship. That was why I went out of my way to get German citizenship as soon as I was legally allowed to.
Because I believe free trade is the right thing to do in principle.
There are still an awful lot of Tory MPs, members and voters who prize fiscal discipline and sound money above all else. They will turn against reckless spending, and the Thatcherites will be reborn. Can't wait.
From Jan 1st, you have to get yourself born in Northern Ireland to enjoy that unique status. For the price of a ferry across the Irish say, and a few nights in a Derry hospital, that might be appealing to many ambitious parents
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/27/george-osborne-wise-byron-burger
Of course one should never take anything for granted.
But it's much, much harder for Labour to move right on culture than it is for the Tories to move left on the economy - and the cultural shift required is much larger than the economic one.
Starmer is doing his best by observing Armed Forces Day and - having suddenly realized what he was letting himself in for by uncritically embracing BLM - distancing himself from defunding the police. But the fact is that the left's MPs, members, journalists, and activists are utterly wedded to identity politics and nothing will induce them from plunging headlong into that cul-de-sac.
Hence the opportunity.
Though "not that bright" says the person who is so dim he can't understand that nationalism can be a virtue and not a vice and only sees one side of a coin. As I said to you earlier today when you ranted it can of course at extremes be evil - as can most philosophies at extremes, but moderately it can be quite viruous. All things in moderation as they say.
You're as bad as HYUFD for dragging folk down your reductive 'logical conclusion' rabbit holes.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1277561845004537857?s=20
Meanwhile Labour has a competent leader, albeit not great - his Today interview this morning was very poor. But he'll do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/opinion/sunday/tammy-duckworth-biden-2020.html
ETA and I missed a 14/1 winner checking and typing this.
WHO warns 'the worst is yet to come'
Despite progress in some countries, he said the pandemic was speeding up and the world would need even greater stores of resilience, patience and generosity in the months ahead.
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths
Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What is the principle behind them which you think so important?
They are now eagerly retweeting stuff like this:
https://twitter.com/dereckapurnell/status/1276903249463959553?s=20
Oh please tell us what contribution you make to global trade. I think even The Disgraced ex GP Liam Fox knows more about international business than you do Philip, and that is a pretty low bar!
You're not a fan of Boris then.
Is everyone having a bit of an IQ dip today?
The polls already show his majority having fallen and he's on borderline Hung Parliament territory. He's had his most popular moment and I think it's now slowly downhill for him.
That new and fresh thing is slowly being replaced by "us and them" which Starmer is going to exploit, the fact he's not Jeremy Corbyn, the fact Brexit is over and is a reason a lot voted Tory (and they weren't happy about it, it seems), to me means the next election is possibly going to result in a very slim Tory majority or a Hung Parliament.
I'm guessing they don't work in hospitality.....
Both main parties have a very difficult conundrum to resolve - which resolves it the best will determine what happens in 2024.
Ironically, the 2017 polls before the election, were pretty much spot on for what the outcome of the 2019 election would be. The election the Tories wanted in 2017, was the election they did get in 2019.
They aren't going to get that election ever again.
The two parties would really do well to form an unofficial pact.
They've lost my respect really, even if I agree with the fundamental ideas of systemic racism.
I’m - perhaps naively - assuming that they won’t simply pay out to a random bank account, but rather need to see a registered charity or company with an account in their name?
The Tories = patriotic, traditional, strong, sensible, chilled.
Labour = wimpy, new fangled, effete, degenerate, uptight.
Starmer's challenge is to make the above look absurd. If he can, Labour will romp it next time since they have won all the big arguments on the economy. Nobody admits to still believing in free markets and sound money - not even the Tories.
They've not been hacked. They've either become wildly overconfident and emboldened, and gone too far - or, more likely, they are hardened Marxists and they just don't care. This is what they really think.
Scotland is self-evidently a country.
Scotland is self-evidently a comparably sized region in that list to the North West.
Scotland is self-evidently not a comparably sized country to England.
I don't see what I've said that's controversial, especially since it supports your own idea that Scotland should be independent.
I don't want to associate myself with them, as I don't agree with what they're saying now. I do agree with the general point that black lives matter but this is not the way to deliver it.
Starmer is the only politician who will actually make their lives better, because he is the only one who can become Prime Minister. We really need to get behind him on the left and accept that maybe we can't have exactly what we want but perhaps some change is better than none at all?
I'm Blairite scum!
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.