Westminstenders: The 3 Million get their first offer.

[RedToothBrush]

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.

Isn't the free movement argument a bit of a red herring? Would FM be such a problem for British people if the UK government actually did have a working policy on removing people who are not self supporting? And if they did have an effective way of dealing with illegal immigration?

I wish Blair had phased in the immigration of the newer Eastern European countries as Germany and France did. Maybe people here wouldn't feel so overwhelmed with EU immigration. That was Tony Blair's doing. I don't remember Englisg people complaining about EU immigrants in the 90s, does anyone here? Did the DM have hate tirades against the EU and or EU citizens in the 80s and 90s?

• who are not self supporting and or in employment

oleanna Women in the 1970s and 1980s had fewer legal rights and faced more sexism in employment etc, but I didn't notice such violent hostility.

I wonder if losing some male privilege has provoked this fury, an expression of:
"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression "

It could be because social media has enabled people to instantly express their hatred of women and minority groups, whereas before Tinternet they hadn't such easy circulation - just anonymous letters and pamphlets.

Possibly the easy exposure and entry online to unfiltered nastiness is actually a catalyst which creates extreme views, or massively reinforces the kernel of existing ones.
Many people would never have encountered far right or white supremacist propoganda in rl, but countless millions now do so online.
Sophisticated and targeted propoganda can change views.

Would FM be such a problem for British people if the UK government actually did have a working policy on removing people who are not self supporting?
That would require hard work and competence, so yes it would be a problem.

Did the DM have hate tirades against the EU and or EU citizens in the 80s and 90s?
Wasn't the flow the other way for a while or is Air Wiedersehn, Pet not an actual documentary?

I mean Auf Wiedersehn, Pet.

That would require hard work and competence, so yes it would be a problem.

It will also cost money which is why nothing's been done about it sooner.

sheffield A lot of anger at both the EU and immigrants is of course misplaced anger that should be directed at the abysmal failings of successive UK govts.
Also the effects of globalisation that are felt most by the wc in all Western countries to some extent.

The Tory tabloids have always spewed hate; the Telegraph used to be a quite respectable conservative broadsheet.

I remember anti-EU stories going back at least to mid-1980s, which increased enormously in the early 1990s, but imo only went really insane after the 2007/8 financial crash - there was greater need to deflect blame from the wealthier who made a killing.

The tabloids were hostile to immigrants at least as far back as the 1970s, but that was almost entirely against people of colour.
The prejudice against non-EU ones naturally happened only after Labour seriously miscalculated in 2004 - that only a few thousand would wish to come and hence had no checks - and no preparation of infrastructure to cope.

It looks a basic choice of

either FOM (+ ECJ) and trade much as normal after Brexit, i.e. EEA / EFTA

or no FOM, but no EU trade deal either until a few years after Brexit

• also no trade deals with the rest of the world, since the Uk has none of its own atm.

i.e. economic cliff edge Brexit

Boris Johnson was writing rubbish about the EU back in the '90s. In fact some argue he pretty much invented he contemporary phenomenon of fake news and started the Brexit ball rolling, all for the lolz.

See this guardian piece on him: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/15/brexit-boris-johnson-euromyths-telegraph-brussels

There is a v small chance we could be pleasantly surprised with the deal:
(but not due to any brilliance by DD)

Merrell, Schulz, Macron, Verhofstadt & co are talking of significant changes in the EU.
However, they are thinking of what would work better for existing members, not the semi-detached UK
Also, their timescale is not within the next 15 months, which is what the UK would need, to manage a deal in time.

It could be because social media has enabled people to instantly express their hatred of women and minority groups, whereas before Tinternet they hadn't such easy circulation - just anonymous letters and pamphlets.

Possibly the easy exposure and entry online to unfiltered nastiness is actually a catalyst which creates extreme views, or massively reinforces the kernel of existing ones.

I completely agree with this BigChoc. Sadly it is not just the right resorting to dehumanising tactics to attack their targets and opponents (which then leads on to personal attacks, particularly of women).

heatst.com/world/why-left-wing-satire-has-gone-too-far/

Another week, another fresh method of death has been served up by liberal cartoonists towards British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Yesterday, the Guardian’s Steve Bell depicted May as a ghoulish crash test dummy, hurtling headlong in a car towards a Brexit brick wall.

Yet it’s a tame offering compared to Monday’s Guardian, when Bell’s stablemate, Martin Rowson, drew May burning alive inside 10 Downing Street in grim pastiche of the Grenfell Tower fire disaster that left at least 79 people dead.

This shocked even seasoned media commentators – while others likened its depiction of May to “dreadful Nazi propaganda cartoons”.

But it was just another day at the office for progressive cartoonists, whose quills drip with a venom that is becoming increasingly embittered towards conservative women.

Fire is a favoured method of execution. A fortnight earlier, Rowson had depicted a screaming May being dragged by a horse into a field of burning wheat.

When Marine le Pen failed to become French President in May, Rowson had her burned at the stake, which drew the comment: “Nothing cheers me up like the sight of fascist tears”.

To the execution of right-wing female political leaders, we can add sexual defilement as, in March, Bell penned a cartoon of Theresa May being sodomized by Donald Trump, an advance on Rowson’s earlier cartoon featuring Trump torturing her.

Taking away Permanent Residency, forcing EU human beings to reapply for a diligent document might not be legally sound. Interesting paragraph on Certainty of Law

humberbusiness.com/news/humber-immigration-expert-believes-pms-eu/story-6227-detail/story

Apologies: different document

There was also a lot of anti Irish sentiment stirred by the media back in the 80s. It's not new at all, it's just a change in the enemy. They'll find a new one soon enough.

This can't be good:

@janemerrick23
I didn't realise tests weren't testing the insulation too - day of Grenfell a fire expert told me insulation more likely to be problem

So head of LGA Lord Porter tells #r4today they need to test panel and insulation together. Only panels being tested. What a shambles.

I completely agree with this BigChoc. Sadly it is not just the right resorting to dehumanising tactics to attack their targets and opponents (which then leads on to personal attacks, particularly of women).

There is an escalating normalisation of the depiction of violence and shock on both sides of the spectrum, but I also think it is the case outside of the political sphere. I also think there is an escalating outrage reaction, which is sometime not really justified.

I think the May burning in number 10 cartoon is bad taste and feel uncomfortable for the victims as it feels a bit trivialising, but considering the anger I feel about May's response to the tragedy I find it hard to summon up offence on her behalf.

The Donald Trump one was drawn on the context of lots of talk of her getting into bed with Trump and the background of his treatment of women. I saw it as showing her willingly getting into bed with someone who is known to abuse women. Again, possibly bad taste and not an imagine I was to have in my head, but I am struggling to be genuinely offended by it. It's hardly on a par with some of the things Hillary had thrown at her during the US campaigns.

Pain In the investigating Officers opening statement on Grenfall she specifically stated that the insulation had ignited even more quickly than the cladding in tests, which both had failed. It is certainly part of the Police investigation.

Bigly We will have to agree to disagree. As a woman of TM's age, I felt physically sick at the Trump cartoon. The idea that in this day and age it is acceptable to use the sexuality of a woman in the public eye to attack her for a political purpose, I find horrifying. But heyho, she's a Tory so that's okay then

It's hardly on a par with some of the things Hillary had thrown at her during the US campaigns.

Either its about whether dehumanising attacks and depictions of women are okay, irrespective of their politics, or it's not. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.

I just do see it as a particularly dehumanising attack when taken in context wrong. I consider myself a very staunch feminist and studied feminist theory. I could write an essay about how the use of legs is often used to dehumanise women and break them into constant parts, how the trump on top denotes masculine power, etc, etc, but I am not sure I would really get the outrage on this example. The phrase "getting into bed with" is general parlance and was used a lot to describe May's relationship with Trump after the hand holding. This is not about the fact she is a Tory, it is about context.

..and the direction the feet were pointing is just incidental and not depicting sodomy?

In the 80s and 90s as a woman who worked in a male dominated business environment sexual harassment and innuendo were entirely normal. I was physically assaulted, comments like "so have you?" to my boss, the response was I would not talk like that in her hearing or you may find she gets her rusty scissors out, moaning that the AIDS crisis meant going back to being a teenager and having to wear a condom, and constant and routine belittling and patronising, being asked almost constantly to make the tea / type things up. By the noughties that was no longer OK but at the same time extreme sexism in the form of "banter" was rearing its head amongst the young. What happens in uni bars on Wednesday nights and in hazing rituals etc would never have been acceptable in universities in the 70s just as sexual harassment is not OK in the workplace now. It has always been there and probably always will, give somebody a sniff of superiority and license to exercise it and the unthinking will, whether it is gender, nationality, class or, most sadly, being able, exercise it . The issue is to make it unacceptable.

Howabout Surely the issue is whether May is being subjected to this vicious satire because she is female or because she is Prime Minister. Would David Cameron have been subjected to different treatment? I remember the briwnosing satire about Blair and Bush so I think not.

There is often a false equivalence put about between mildly distasteful and poorly considered things on the left and downright offensive things put out by the right. If you get equally outraged by the mildly unpleasant as the genuinly hateful you lose any sense of proportion and the hateful becomes less offensive. It is damaging and allows the right to shut down a poor production of Julius Caesar while people who argued Hillary should be shot are invited into the white house. These are not the same thing!

Brown nosing (gah no idea how to correctly spell it, you can tell why nobody ever asked me to type things twice [evil grin]