Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: The 3 Million get their first offer.

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 27/06/2017 18:02

The UK have finally put forward their proposals for EU citizens living in the UK. These 'bargaining chips' have been offered a 'generous deal' which is nothing of the sort.

For an in depth look at what it means this is a good summary:
Analysis: what is the UK proposing for EU citizens in the UK and EU citizens in the EU?
This is written by a leading immigration law blogger.

What they suggest, is this is probably what will happen in the event of a no deal situation and that hopefully there can be a better final deal. That does seem to be backed by the comments about EU citizens not needing to do anything now (including apply to remain under existing rules under the 85page document) although they are telling the civil service to prepare for a no deal situation. But who knows? Who can trust them?

What we should all be paying close attention to is not just the detail of this, but the language around it.

Numerous politicians have said that they will wait and see what the EU proposal is, even though it has been out for a couple of weeks. This is an effort to discredit and smear the EU.

This comes after Davis had suggested that the UK had achieved a 'victory' by getting the EU to 'agree' to put citizens rights at the time of priorities to be dealt with, even though it was also the top priority for the EU who refuse to talk about anything else until the matter is settled. Everything is being couched as a victory, even if its merely agreeing with the EU and constitutes a compromise by the UK and a row back from previous comments.

Also flying about a lot is confusion over the ECJ and the EHCR. Some of it is ignorant. Some of it is an effort to discredit and smear the ECJ to force a harder Brexit.

The EU position can be found here: EU proposals for post Brexit EU/UK citizens
It is essentially to preserve ALL current rights.

The UK position is to reduce EU citizens rights. This would also enable them to reduce UK citizens rights in the longer term, so what happens here, isn't just about EU nationals rights its also about UK nationals living in the UK.

Of course the proposals also have more significance for UK citizens living in the EU. The UK government have frequently suggested their use of bargaining chips was to help UK citizens living abroad. What has been put on the table could not be further from the truth. The government is quite happy to screw over UK citizens living in the EU. Probably because they are traitors.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to a deal is who oversees it all. The UK want it all done purely by UK courts. This is NOT going to happen (unless we have a no deal). There is no way the EU will compromise on this, due to our dreadful track record in deportations with unlawful behaviour and lack of regard for family life. (Thanks Theresa). Systems on the table as an alternative to the ECJ are a new court system - perhaps even merely one with the same judges but with a different name to appease a ignorant British public - or arbitration which is unlikely as it tends to be for states and not businesses or individuals.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses as it should give a good idea of how much we will compromise.

Its also been pointed out that the paper on EU citizens have been the first public document on Brexit which has had any substance. If I was a cynic I might say that Davis is sitting on his arse waiting for the EU to publish their proposals before and merely copying the EU's homework and making changes to it. If that happens to really be the case, then its perhaps a good thing, as our lot really are bloody useless and have no idea what they are talking about.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
RedToothBrush · 28/06/2017 23:36

And look the Times kindly plastered the story all over their front page tomorrow.

Has someone set May up with this? Or is it genuinely another epic cock up?

Westminstenders: The 3 Million get their first offer.
OP posts:
woman12345 · 28/06/2017 23:42

Or is it genuinely another epic cock up She is so weak, that Owen Jones podcast (thanks paininthear) seems to ring true. She's the lighting conductor for outrage. And it is gendered, of course.

Infantile way to run an island.

BigChocFrenzy · 28/06/2017 23:47

re the cap on public sector pay, why isn't it applied to MPs too ? Hmm
We pay them out of our taxes,
but they voted themselves an 11% pay rise and ever more generous pensions and generous severance pay for MPs who fail to get reelected.

And they get unlimited amounts of heavily subsidized food and booze all the HoC restaurants and bars.
No other public employees get such benefits and subsidies. Very few do in the private sector either.

woman12345 · 28/06/2017 23:54

Creasy's good though BigChoc.
Stella Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow, appeared on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday to talk about her amendment to the Queen’s Speech which would allow Northern Irish women, British tax payers, to access free abortion services in England and Wales. Mnay have feared that in the wake of the DUP-Tory deal reproductive rights for Northern Irish women, already the least free in the United Kingdom, could be further under attack.
labourlist.org/2017/06/reproductive-rights-in-northern-ireland-economy-first-brexit-and-the-benefits-freeze-sunday-media-round-up/

RedToothBrush · 28/06/2017 23:57

Also from earlier today:
www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/pets/news/fire-safety-measures-grenfell-tower-sprinklers-retrofitting-fire-service-cuts-independent-panel-a7812646.html
Fire safety independent panel chair advised against retrofitting sprinklers and authored report advocating £200m fire service cuts

Sir Ken Knight will now advise the Government on its response to the Grenfell Tower fire

But in his report the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell, which killed three women and three children in 2009, the former London fire commissioner wrote: "It is not considered as practical or economically viable to make a requirement for the retrospective fitting of fire suppression systems to all current high-rise residential buildings.

However it is a matter for individual housing owners and landlords to decide if automatic fire suppression is required as part of their fire safety strategy based on their fire risk assessment."

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 29/06/2017 00:06

None of this is a good look for Grenfell is it?

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 29/06/2017 00:24

A while back, LH outlined the UK's contribution in relation to the entire EU budget. Don't forget that the EU will probably also soak up extra money from businesses which may have to move to be located in an EU country. Also, now the EU 27 may bring in tighter rules wrt the financial markets and passporting. The UK's loss may be the EU's gain. So, against that backdrop, the UK's contribution may be significantly less than the extra revenue the EU mops up.

BigChocFrenzy · 29/06/2017 00:57

woman Cheering Creasey's amendment !
NI decide what they want within NI, but when a NI woman comes to rUK she shouldn't be discriminated against when she wants healthcare

BigChocFrenzy · 29/06/2017 01:05

Grenfell Inquest: A six-month-old baby girl was found dead in her mother’s arms in a stairwell

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/baby-found-dead-mothers-arms-grenfell-tower

That's what happens with insufficient safety regulations - and insufficient resources for enforcement.
Little Leena Belkadi; what a horrible death for anyone, let alone a baby

Since corporate manslaughter was made an offense in 2007, it has only led to fines, never jail:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/grenfell-tower-fire-police-considering-manslaughter-charges

annandale · 29/06/2017 04:50

Fascinating thread as ever.

Interesting that the PM does have time and knowledge to comment on the relaxation of building/fire regs in 2007, but not on whether the cladding used was compliant with those recommendations.

RedToothBrush · 29/06/2017 05:59

Big Choc corporate manslaughter is a fine and is brought against organisations.

Gross negligence manslaughter can also be brought against individuals is more generally a jail sentence. This is what one of the coppers for Hillsborough has just been charged with which is why it is interesting and I suspect there is a possibility it could be used in the case of Grenfell against certain individuals.

As its manslaughter it can carry up to life imprisonment but because it's involuntary sentencing guidelines put a lesser weight on it. Such a heavy sentence is extremely unlikely for that reason. In the case where a canoe instructor ended up responsible for four deaths he got three years (later reduced to two). That said there are aggrievating factors that can be taken into account that increase sentences though. These are:

multiple deaths
a prolonged and deliberately dangerous course of conduct
an awareness of a significant risk of death or really serious injury
ignoring warnings that a course of conduct was dangerous or potentially dangerous, and
pursuing a course of conduct for financial gain

As you can see, some of these potentially could be applicable for Grenfell if this particular charge did crop up.

I think with regard to corporate v gross negligence manslaughter it depends to what degree individuals are particularly responsible and in what capacity. I can think of reasons for perhaps two individuals from two very different types of organisation where gross negligence rather than corporate manslaughter might be pursued over and above the latter. I certainly don't want to go in why and who but I think it possible. That's a joy for the police to unpick.

The burden of proof required to bring a successful prosecution is particularly high so this crime so could be a stumbling block but I do think the decision by the CPS to pursue the charge fir Hillsborough even if unsuccessful is significant and demonstrates a public interest in even attempting it.

Also it's interesting that the CPS went for individuals rather than organisations for Hillsborough. I believe this is in part due to organisations effectively no longer existing thirty years later but the decision is interesting because they clearly felt that individuals made decisions that were particularly significant.

Having said all that I can equally see no prosecutions being brought for Grenfell and it ending up with a Hillsborough type scenario. The parallels are multiple for too many reasons.

The chair of the Grenfell inquiry is not a promising start. Nor is the person brought in to advise the government. Both have previous for focusing on financial rather the human element of decisions and don't really inspire confidence for that reason when the whole crux of the argument over Grenfell is that residents were treated like second class citizens and finances were more important.

I don't know how it will pan out. The chain of events for Grenfell is a mess and does come down from decisions or lack of over a very long time from a wide range of sources. Actually pinning on an individual or an organisation is going to be more difficult than you might hope.

I do think the will by the police to attempt to is there at least. Whether it will result in a conviction on the other hand might be rather more challenging. Its perhaps in the public interest to bring X, y or z trial but plenty of reasons why such prosecutions might not stick is my gut feeling sadly but I hope I'm wrong.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 29/06/2017 06:33

Jo Maugham @ JolyonMaugham
I'll be discussing the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick on @GMB this morning.
Headline points. Other than in the most striking cases, we shouldn't read too much into particular decisions of a judge. /1
It is vital the judge be able to command the confidence of the public. Otherwise an inquiry can compound rather than resolve grievance. /2
And here's the problem. Anyone looking for a High Court judge to head an inquiry is fishing in an incredibly small and privileged pool. /3
Only 7% of the public went to fee paying schools, compared with 74% of High Court or above judges. /4
Less than 1% of the population went to Oxbridge; but 74% of High Court or above judges did. /5
On ethnic diversity it is now rather difficult to tell what the situation is because the judicial office has 'improved' the statistics. /6
But in 2014 there were only 4 (of 1,450) full time salaried black court judges in the whole of England and Wales. /7
At Grenfell Tower, where issues of poverty, neglect and voicelessness bubble underneath, victims would choose a judge who can identify. /8
Worth noting that Sir Martin went to a grammar school. Has he come from a less privileged background than most of his colleagues? /9
We must all hope the Government engages with victims when it comes to terms of reference and the choice of Counsel to represent them. /ends

Joshua Rozenburg @ JoshuaRozenburg
I have no problem with Sir Martin Moore-Bick but does a retired judge meet requirements of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 sched 1 para 3(1)?

(from what I can tell this is a minor point about suspending inquests whilst the inquiry is held but could be wrong)

These comments should reassure me. I don't feel reassured. The problem is the issue of public confidence particularly within the Grenfell community. Given the lack of trust there already is, that case is going to be a big barrier to that.

God it's a clustering muck.

OP posts:
Sostenueto · 29/06/2017 06:52

Grenfell victims deserve justice the same as Hillsborough, it is a sad , sad blot on this countries record of being a just society. (That has deteriorated so badly in the last 20 years or so). I hope people keep demonstrating about it, keep making lots of noise so noone forgets their tragedy. We really must get together over this one.

LurkingHusband · 29/06/2017 06:55

sad blot on this countries record of being a just society.

Except we were told 30 years ago that there's no such thing as society.

Sostenueto · 29/06/2017 07:13

Who said that lurking husband Thatcher? My memory not so good.Sad

annandale · 29/06/2017 07:20

Yes it was Thatcher. 'There are men and women and there are families.' No mention of any of the infrastructure around them in a developed society, from building regs to roads to education to police. I think it had such an impact because she clearly believed every syllable of it and it explained a lot.

woman12345 · 29/06/2017 07:43

As Grenfell appears to have been a racialised crime, it seems appropriate to re visit the Mac Pherson report into the mishandling of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry.

Racism, Institutional racism, Unwitting racism are all analysed in this report, and their effects on black victims of crime and their families, of whom there are hundreds in Grenfell.

In 1999 Institutional racism was being challenged and now institutional racism is official government policy.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

The 1999 recommendations included:

The definition of a "racist incident" will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person

The public will be encouraged to report racist incidents by making it possible to report them 24 hours a day, and not only at police stations.

www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/24/lawrence.ukcrime12

It would be a very bad thing if this tory administration chose to further ignore/ silence the role of race in this tragedy.

HesterThrale · 29/06/2017 07:49

The DUP bung was conditional on them restoring power sharing in NI. So do Sinn Fein hold all the cards here? If they refuse to agree today, the DUP don't get their billion and won't vote with the Tories on the QS.... is this true?

BestIsWest · 29/06/2017 07:56

Fascinating if so Hester

Sostenueto · 29/06/2017 08:04

I bloody well hope that is right! Wouldn't that be karma! Cannot see that happening though. Is it really an advantage for Sein Fein to not have past agreement?

twofingerstoEverything · 29/06/2017 08:07

Another placemat.

HesterThrale · 29/06/2017 08:11

A main sticking point in the NI talks seems to be coming to agreement about use of the Irish language. I believe power sharing collapsed in January after the failed green energy scheme in which Arlene Foster was implicated. Although I'm a bit hazy about this. (I'm ashamed to admit how little I know of NI politics. Many posters here will be much more knowledgeable in this.)
So the deadline for them to agree is 4pm today. But I reckon some delay is possible.
The whole government is hanging by a thread here.

Sostenueto · 29/06/2017 08:12

I think we are all suffering from an overambitious hope that pesky QS won't get through.Sad how many Tories said they were against continued paycuts to public sector workers and austerity? How many voted yesterday for Jezzas amendment? Zero us the answer, zero. Tory backbenchers want to keep their jobs they will NEVER vote against QS.Angry

Sostenueto · 29/06/2017 08:22

Tories, the nasty party don't give a damn about this country or it's people. They care only about money in their pockets. Grenfell will not get justice because there is a big issue around corruption. I wonder his many MPs over the years gave pocketed by the slacking off of building regulations? His many MPs mainly Tory are private landlords voted against the 'fit for human habitation' bill labour tried to get through Parliament? Corruption wherever you look, backhanders wherever you look, election fiddling wherever you look, cover-ups wherever you look. All in the name if MONEY. They say religion has a lot to answer for, well the biggest religion in the world is the worship of money. It is the ultimate God. The one and only..........

HardcoreLadyType · 29/06/2017 08:25

The Labour amendment yesterday was a huge PR win for them, and the Tories and DUP played straight into their hands by cheering when the vote on the amendment was lost.

I think it is very likely that the panel that reviews public sector pay will advise higher rises this year. But the moment will have passed. All many people will remember is the way the government cheered as they voted down pay rises for police, firefighters and nurses.

Maybe we will have a true opposition, at last?

Swipe left for the next trending thread