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.

Thanks sos. Just waiting for my lift to arrive. Ho hum.

On the bright side I shall post this rather adorable tweet from the German foriegn office that made me all warm and fuzzy inside while I wait.

Was Owen Patterson talking about this?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40395742

"Free trade deals with developing countries will continue post-Brexit, the government has said. The UK will maintain an EU deal, which provides 48 countries with duty-free access to Britain for imports. It means British firms do not pay import tariffs on goods bought from countries such as Bangladesh and Haiti.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said Brexit gave the country an opportunity "to step up our commitments to the rest of the world".
He added: "Free and fair trade has been the greatest liberator of the world's poor, and today's announcement shows our commitment to helping developing countries grow their economies and reduce poverty through trade."

The deal excludes arms and ammunitions.

The list of countries - which also includes Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda - is based on the UN's Least Developed Countries index. Currently £19.2bn of goods are imported from the 48 countries, including 79% of the tea consumed in Britain. Some 45% of the UK's textile and clothing imports, and 22% of its coffee, also come from the developing nations.

International Development Secretary Priti Patel said the renewed commitment would "help the world's poorest people stand on their own two feet". She added: "Building a more prosperous world and supporting our own long-term economic security is firmly in all our interests‎."

The government also intends to explore options to expand relationships with richer countries like Jamaica, Pakistan and Ghana, which currently enjoy a mixture of reduced tariffs or zero tariffs.

Dr Fox added it would result "in lower prices and greater choice for consumers". "

If so, that's very praiseworthy, but it's about imports. What are we going to export?

As I've said numerous times, world+dog may be queuing up for free trade deals to sell us stuff, not so sure about buying stuff from us.

The Tories are only going to be looking at the lowest paid workers in the public sector to a view of removing the cap on wages. That was on radio 4 this morning.

I try and avoid making reference to May in certain ways.

She is robotic and has made many decisions which don't seem human. That's something difficult to ignore as it's professional. So May-Bot fair enough.

Also hand holding Trump isn't professional. So again seems worthy of comment.

I otherwise make a conscious decision to avoid personal attacks and comments about appearance as a general rule. There is quite a bit about May being cruella deville. I think this is an overstep for the most part.

Otherwise mocking and satire for the PM of the UK has been a stable of British political life. Cameron had pigs. Blair was a poodle. Major and Thatcher were spitting image puppets.

Where I think it differs is women in lower ranks are subject to more abuse and it's regardless of their status and competence. Men can be incompetent without the same level of criticism. Women can be the most able but are still treated as incompetent. Plus their appearance tends to be the focus of abuse rather than political ability or belief.

I don't always get it right but I do try and think about things and qualify them. There is also a world of difference between saying that's similar to a policy in the 1930s and taking it to the level where you are putting swastikas on peoples doors.

I think Twitter blurs the lines between public and private which doesn't help. In the past the rant about politicians was just a rant down the pub. Now people can have that rant in the face of that politician. I think that's on essence the bit that people don't understand. That boundary between when it steps into the personal and private.

The secret thoughts of people were once contained. Now they are out in the open in all their ugliness. It's like a sewer of human thoughts has leaked onto the streets and people think it's fair to urinate in public as a result.

I think people need to learn social boundaries. That requires collective establishment of those social boundaries across societies. From where social media has started its particularly difficult to do that. I think over time it would naturally settle and people will be educated in its unacceptably but thats not something we have the luxury of when it affects people to that extent now.

There is a fundamental difference between political satire as propaganda at the highest levels and it being used against people without power, precisely because it's about power and control.

Great news Bigly! Xx take care my dear you are most welcome here.

Votes for British citizens outside the UK for 15 years...was someone saying earlier that's a red line for them (i.e. absolutely not?). What about if you still own property in the UK - no taxation without representation? The concepts of identity, nationality and rights are so muddled.

Well said Red. Trouble is social media in all its forms does not have social consciousness. It has no morals, anything goes and people that use and abuse social media feel so safe spitting out their venom because there is no control by the companies that run social media.
I was having a heartfelt conversation last night with my 15yr old gdd who has been deeply affected by the tragedy of Grenfell. She is a leftie of her own choosing and has been a regular ranter since about the age of 12! Even her friends roll their eyes when she starts. She is studying the inspector calls for her upcoming GCSE next year and was telling me how things have not changed at all as regards social consciousness and the gap between rich and poor. She sees Grenfell as a particular example of this and has a great deal of anger about the whole situation as more details emerge. She says that unless society wakes up to the problem of social consciousness we will be living soon back in the 1900s. What struck her most was the comment by the leader of Kensington council being more concerned about the councils reputation rather than the horrendous loss of life. She said now there is a prime example of Mr B in the inspector calls. She wants to put that in her analysis of the book which I had to gently persuade her she couldn't! But everything she said rang so true about our society. I wish she was not right. But, as usual, she is.

Although, bigly, Merkel voted against it.

Isn't the real issue with social media that it is anonymous? It therefore enables the inadequate to project an image of not just adequacy but superiority. Wasn't that the driver of the birth and growth of the alt right /Milo phenomenon, as we have discussed in the past, young men finding an outlet for their own frustrations in the internet? That evolved into a real community but face to face they would be unlikely to express their views and hatred openly? They would be treated as geeky adolescents with little social capital.

I thought that the vote for same sex marriage finally went through because Merkel relented and said yes?

For more warm fuzzy feeling, Sam Bee and Elizabeth Warren: mashable.com/2017/06/29/elizabeth-warren-samantha-bee-resist/#_CzEyNP4MOqw

Seems we need to look to Germany for some pointers on how democracy works ...

Isn't the real issue with social media that it is anonymous? It therefore enables the inadequate to project an image of not just adequacy but superiority. Wasn't that the driver of the birth and growth of the alt right /Milo phenomenon, as we have discussed in the past, young men finding an outlet for their own frustrations in the internet? That evolved into a real community but face to face they would be unlikely to express their views and hatred openly? They would be treated as geeky adolescents with little social capital.

As I say, its about power and control.

There are legitimate reasons on social media to be anonymous or to use a false name. I've done it in the past. MN works precisely BECAUSE of that anonymity.

Who has power, who wants power, who lacks power, how can they assert power.

Abuse is the result of a lack of consequence. Or to put it in terms which perhaps explain in similar terms to other sources of power - through lack of accountability.

Communities are bound by collective norms and conventions by shared values. How social media communities behave shows who is control of those communities or who has a disproportionate influence in those communities.

Personal attacks as part of satire are as old as recorded history. (I remember LOLing at Juvenal ripping a pompous lawyer a new one in Latin).

Some of the printed images of various public figures of history are also quite scandalous ...

And anonymity has been a staple of political criticism since the year dot.

The only people who think it's a new thing are people who never knew it was an old thing ?

The only addition to the mix is speed ... which leads to a suggestion that as a collective society we can only process ideas so fast and it's possible to be overwhelmed by information before it can be - collectively - agreed upon.

(the temptation to enquote the whole lot, and add "discuss" was great, but I overcame it ).

Agreed it is a double edged sword but I still think that you will always have people prepared to hide behind anonymity on social media to say and do offensive or attention seeking things they would not in real life. Even on mumsnet, you have the worst as well as the best. Every group has social norms, and that is largely what has kept this thread on the whole civilised and constructive, but other Brexit threads turned into slanging matches and in one case someone filled two and half pages with all out abuse directed at me. That was of course deleted but I have also seen it come close to that without censure.

I have made friends for life in another community that sprang up on threads on here . The threads are still going but that original community in the end had to move to a secret group on Facebook which only admitted those we knew in real life. The reason was not just that some were offensive, the supportive nature of the threads made that mostly socially unacceptable anyway, but that people were coming on there with fabricated or exaggerated identities and stories that were extremely scary for vulnerable people in need of support. It was patently obvious to most of us that they were lying but in spite of many highlighting it, It took some pretty extensive research that found a poster was posting different equally alarming stories in different forums across the internet before Mumsnet banned one of the posters. Of course Munchausens exists in real life and it is a mental health issue but we learned it is far more common on the internet, a consequence of anonymity taking away some of the controls on human behaviour.

I suppose I am cynical and jaded but I do not see social media ever succeeding in overcoming that issue to make it a more civilised place, even when Mums are running it

Kensington and Chelsea council have been rebuked by the government for their meeting not being open to public and press and it was not detrimental to the enquiry into Grenfell to have an open meeting. Boy does that council need sorting!

Lurking I agree this has always gone on but social media brings not just speed but reach and a sheer volume of output and interaction that no media has ever achieved before. Look at this thread, how many thousands of posts in a year, who knows how many lurk as well as post, and regulars are spread across Europe, sometimes the world.

I am the only one who has noticed that the FTA that Liam Fox set up was about protecting the import of tea?

Tries to imagine a word where brits wouldnt have any easy and cheap access to tea. Fails....

No you are not cynical whatwouldrondo. There are people who use social media because they have mental problems etc.
On the other hand, i made a wonderful group of friends by playing a game on line. I played the game, a real-time strategy game for over 10 years with people all over the world. Our game involved in being part if an alliance to play. Our alliance consisted of players from USA, Canada, UK Australia and Japan. We were very successful and could chat on Skype and when we played. Well we actually had a get together here in UK where we spent a wonderful week in the New Forest on holiday together. We talked non stop about the game and had so much nerdy fun. Ages ranged from 19 to 70 from all walks of life. Although I don't play anymore we still phone each other and Skye each other. One of our Aussie friends visited all of us on a worldwide trip. Each of us putting her up for 3-4 days. That tour lasted 3 months! She was 65 at the time wow! What a time had by all, so yes wonderful friendships formed on line.

Merkel's and the DUP's view on gay marriage chime. That is going to create a fair bit of cognitive dissonance.

Tries to imagine a word where brits wouldnt have any easy and cheap access to tea

Stewart Lee joked about worrying how he would have access to cheap hot beverages if EU nationals had to leave ... ironically in the same programme (if memory serves) where he pointed out that politics had become self-satirising, and it was impossible to write a joke anymore, as it would simply be topped by real life.

Sostenueto

There are so many films you could make of that ... all getting together in the New Forest, and being killed one by one maybe

Lol! Lurking husband we used to play Kingdoms of Camelot. So yes we did play games in the forest! We were like teenagers hiding and pretend shooting with sticks etc and sword fights too! Hilarious, do you know we even commandeered a mobility scooter where about 4 of us piled on and suitably oiled with alcoholic beverages raced around! We tried to catch ponies, ambushed each other etc. Then we went back to camp with armfuls of folders full of strategy moves and info and try to play! We used to.keep our PCs on all night with alarms in situ that would wake you if you were being attacked. Barmy lot we were!

we used to play Kingdoms of Camelot. So yes we did play games in the forest! We were like teenagers hiding and pretend shooting with sticks etc and sword fights too!

Many years ago (when I were just 'Lurking') I might have been glimpsed running around Chislehurst caves on a Sunday waving a foam rubber sword, and acquiring treasure left, right and centre.

Kinda sums up the 80s in more ways than one.