Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: The beginning of the dictatorship and the end of Boris?

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 09/09/2017 10:55

Brexit is being fought in the UK media and parliament on the premise that the EU is being difficult and obstructive.

The fallacy can not be understated.

What the UK fails to understand is the right of the EU to put their own interests before the UKs. It doesn't under that our demands cannot be met even if the EU wanted to for practical and legal reasons - not political ones because our understanding of the situation and law is so poor.

The net result is the slippage of the next phase of Brexit talks being pushed to Christmas by the EU due to lack of progress by the UK. Barnier is open to more regular and intense talks but this is bad news for the UK with the a50 clock ticking.

The main stumbling block is NI a with Barnier warning not to use the border as a way to test EU resolve. Brexit always about the NI border. The UK have never provided a solution to the EU that does not produce a hard border. The idea being pushed by the UK will create one despite claiming it won't. The reality is the only viable solutions are either staying in the single market and customs union or NI being granted special status and being different to the rest of the country. The former is opposed by the government, the later opposed by the DUP.

The DUP are getting a taste of their own medicine. They have been warned that Assembly Members might have pay frozen and if they don't reform Stormont they won't get their Billion Pound Booty. Plus Ian Paisley Jr just found a new scandal for the party.

May is trying to channel Venezuela by getting rid of democracy when it suits. The Great Repel Bill (aka as the Withdrawal Bill) faces it's challenge. The much feared Henry VIII in clause 9 are not only facing criticism from Remainers but also from the secretive crackpots of Tory Bastard Club (aka ERG). The TBC want hard cliff edge Brexit. May seems to support given her goodwill burning interference at the Home Office which seeks to discriminate against all foreigners and make them sign a register. The visa system and how it will attract much needed staff for the NHS makes the mind boggle.

The Repel Bill also could end the possibility of transition due to clause 6 which requires us to leave the ECJ. Given the May's ambition to make EU citizens display their stars in job applications this is totally unable to the EU. If it passes the chances of transition drop dramatically. Bye bye Smooth and Orderly.

Then there is the May-Bot paradox: the one were she gives a friendly speech to the EU and a nasty on to the Swivel Eyed Loon gathering. As if neither will be reported to the other audience.

On top of this May is attempting the Parliament Rigging Act as she has a 'majority Government'. Yep I know, this is the general election version of 'will of the people'. The Rigging Act seeks to stack parliamentary committees with Tory majorities so they can stop any bill they don't like getting anywhere need the main chamber this limiting the power of opposition to irrelevant. Sadly I think this one will get through due to maths of the HoC atm.

We shouldn't forget the role of the HoL though and the lack of a majority government (why do you think May is saying majority government? It's down to the Sewell convention and trying to make the case it applies when the argument is it doesn't for a minority government).

The other development is the rumours that Boris is for the boot. And Rees-Mogg might get a promotion.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 15:41

I was asked why I was going on the march, and whether my energies could be spent better elsewhere

If things get as bad as they can, I don't want the future to look back and say "well, if only they had done something". At least a march like this leaves a footprint in history.

One stick we can beat the forebears of todays Germans with, is to note how they didn't protest against Hitler when they had the (admittedly brief) chance. It's something I've heard many Germans say since. And they are generally honest enough to admit that one of the reasons was that there was a quiet approval of Hitler - especially regarding communism.

Remember: The more popular a policy is, the easier it is to smuggle unpleasant things in with it. Look how much we've already lost in the bid to bash immigrants.

woman9917 · 11/09/2017 15:51

Peregina you wouldn't be willing to take commissions for that lovely hat? Or a knitting pattern, I'm a crochetista but I'd like to learn Smile

It's an old Orwellian trick that one, everyone's a friend to Big Brother, and if you're not you're a villain.

Some schools are refusing to spy on children.
schoolsweek.co.uk/refuse-retract-resist-school-nationality-data-collection/

woman9917 · 11/09/2017 15:53

surveillance of immigrants has been handed over to the public and companies
Sorry ^ that is the Orwellian trick.

Badders08 · 11/09/2017 15:57

I've received a letter and appointment for my 8 year old son today for the orthopaedic dept at a local hospital
Also inc was a form to collect info on country of birth, religious affiliation, sexual orientation etc
It's in the bin

LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 15:58

Some schools are refusing to spy on children

Wait for the "enemies of the state" rhetoric, with (as noted upthread) nothing to hide, nothing to fear ...

Meanwhile, whether by fair means or foul, it's probable that personal data for almost every UK adult has been compromised in the US Equifax hack.

www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/11/equifax_breach_uk_exposure/

Of course a "hack" like this means it's impossible to tell where data that governments are using really came from.

Badders08 · 11/09/2017 15:58

^ I have also refused to provide this info to both my son's schools...

LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 15:59

I've received a letter and appointment for my 8 year old son today for the orthopaedic dept at a local hospital Also inc was a form to collect info on country of birth, religious affiliation, sexual orientation etc
It's in the bin

Wait until they start filling forms in behind your back ...

HashiAsLarry · 11/09/2017 16:04

I refused to fill it out for my dc.
So DH did it because he just assumed I missed the form
🤦‍♀️

LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 16:11

So instead of having what you think is the case, TPTB will just insert their version of what they think the case is.

All hidden behind various data protection regulations, and a regulatory framework that provides fuck all protection.

And so it starts.

Does anyone remember what the original reason was for collecting "soft" intelligence on people was ?

Badders08 · 11/09/2017 16:14

Nope

LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 16:28

Meanwhile, Manchester has been piloting post-Brexit border checks

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/people-really-pd-off-passengers-13600438

RedToothBrush · 11/09/2017 16:48

All hidden behind various data protection regulations, and a regulatory framework that provides fuck all protection.

You're telling me.

I've challenged people asking for my data on numerous occasions, when they have failed to inform me of why they wanted it and for what purposes. And don't get be started on Bounty in maternity wards.

Nothing worth than going into a shop and getting told that you HAVE to give them an email address when making a purchase. Like fuck I do.

The problem though is not me, its all the people who don't know this and the fact its very difficult to get these shops to stop this practice. Many are very aggressive with their staff to get X amount of contact details of customers for example, and how do you go from challenging one incident, involving the manager, to establishing that this is widespread and companies can easily deny everything due to the regulatory authorities having little means to stop poor practice?

DH has had to question things in his workplace too, when handling sensitive information. Even people who do this on a daily basis are lacking in knowledge about how you can (and can't) use data.

Its no wonder you have got all the suspicion about Cambridge Analytica going on.

Ironically, I think there is a much better understanding of these issues within the EU.

Data = Money.

People don't get the concept when they sell themselves to people like Bounty for 'free' things.

OP posts:
LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 17:01

People don't get the concept when they sell themselves to people like Bounty for 'free' things

If you're not paying for it, you are the product.

and it's all a little catch-22. When you ask for data held on you, how can you be sure you've got it all ?

And in a "notice how the dots get joined" exercise, "soft" data gets joined to non-jury trials, gets joined to secret evidence the defence can't see ... and this is before midnight tonight (that's midnight on 9/11, in case no one has noticed).

Maybe the Star Chamber could meet outside London, given the accommodation problems in Westminster ?

BigChocFrenzy · 11/09/2017 17:11

Disgraceful discrimination already against E27 nationals in the UK:
renting, jobs, loans - key areas of life

This is illegal as the UK is still a member of the EU
Supposedly also illegal under UK discimination laws

So why do people think they can get away with it now ? Hmm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/no-europeans-need-apply-growing-evidence-discrimination-uk-brexit

Until now, I felt UK expats of 5 years+, or those in a secure job, would be pretty safe wrt right to remain after Brexit, even if there were no deal on expats.

However, we are really relying on the good nature of the other 27 govts - and their voters - not to retaliate after so many spiteful actions against E27 expats in the UK

LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 17:17

Disgraceful discrimination already against E27 nationals in the UK:

It's not a one-way street though. Anecdotally, some UK/EU nationals are starting to pick up advantages over UK nationals.

Peregrina · 11/09/2017 17:17

I am not sure whether I have time to knit another EU beanie hat.
Meanwhile, here is Anke Klemper's original pattern. I didn't have the right sized double pointed needles and find knitting with them a bit of a pain, so I added the extra two stitches. If you do this, remember to read the first row from right to left and the next left to right, and knit and purl, whereas if you are doing it with double pointed needles each row would be a knit row.

If you don't like the idea of working with two colours, I have also seen hats in one colour with the stars made out of felt and stitched on, so that would work, just as well.

BigChocFrenzy · 11/09/2017 17:19

I wonder is all May and DD are doing now is to deliberately poison the well:

Anger the E27 so much, that it will be 30+ years before the Uk could rejoin the EU
Certainly, it would be 10+ years now, rising every day.

I think EEA / EFTA remains though, because it is one nation, one vote and much less opportunity for the UK to throw its weight around

  • sidelined away from the EU, where integration can better continue without the UK disruption.
LurkingHusband · 11/09/2017 17:19

my late DM would have happily knitted all of Mumsnet whatever they wanted ... any size (that's what the Knit Radar was for, apparently) and ribbed if needs be (that's what the ribber was for).

I used to punch the holes from patterns as a nipper. Nice memories ...

woman9917 · 11/09/2017 17:25

peregrina that's lovely, a winter by the fire project! The cat loves knitting or crocheting for the nest he makes on work in progress. I'll add stars, I think.

Peregrina · 11/09/2017 17:33

I did acquire a knitting machine, and haven't yet got round to using it! It would knit the beanie in a trice.

Yes, we could still stay in the EEA/EFTA - but then we will have the hard Tory right rewriting history and saying that this is democracy - people voted to Leave. They didn't because it was another question which wasn't put.

RedToothBrush · 11/09/2017 17:45

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/no-europeans-need-apply-growing-evidence-discrimination-uk-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Europeans need not apply: evidence mounts of discrimination in UK
Exclusive: Government investigates evidence EU nationals are blocked from jobs and from renting or buying homes

Legal cases left right and centre here. Including ones relating to government regulations.

Article 14 of the Human Rights Act

Article 14
Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Plenty for the government to fall foul of here.

Also think of the prospect of the repeal of the Act under Henry VIII Brexit powers.

HOWEVER the Act also stems from the ECHR.

Even if we ARE leaving the EU, we are NOT leaving the ECHR. Or so we say.

This is article 14 of the ECHR:
Article 14 – discrimination
Article 14 contains a prohibition of discrimination. This prohibition is broad in some ways and narrow in others. It is broad in that it prohibits discrimination under a potentially unlimited number of grounds. While the article specifically prohibits discrimination based on "sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status", the last of these allows the court to extend to Article 14 protection to other grounds not specifically mentioned such as has been done regarding discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
At the same time, the article's protection is limited in that it only prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention. Thus, an applicant must prove discrimination in the enjoyment of a specific right that is guaranteed elsewhere in the Convention (e.g. discrimination based on sex – Article 14 – in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression – Article 10). It has been said that laws regarding familial sexual relationships (or incest) are in breach of Article 14 when combined with Article 8.
Protocol 12 extends this prohibition to cover discrimination in any legal right, even when that legal right is not protected under the Convention, so long as it is provided for in national law.

Though this is interesting (and rather worrying):

Protocol 4 – civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion
Article 1 prohibits the imprisonment of people for inability to fulfil a contract. Article 2 provides for a right to freely move within a country once lawfully there and for a right to leave any country. Article 3 prohibits the expulsion of nationals and provides for the right of an individual to enter a country of his or her nationality. Article 4 prohibits the collective expulsion of foreigners.
Turkey and the United Kingdom have signed but never ratified Protocol 4. Greece and Switzerland have neither signed nor ratified this protocol.
The United Kingdom's failure to ratify this protocol is due to concerns over the interaction of Article 2 and Article 3 with British nationality law. Specifically, several classes of "British national" (such as British National (Overseas)) do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and are subject to immigration control there. In 2009, the UK government stated that it had no plans to ratify Protocol 4 because of concerns that those articles could be taken as conferring that right.

Protocol 12 – discrimination
Applies the current expansive and indefinite grounds of prohibited discrimination in Article 14 to the exercise of any legal right and to the actions (including the obligations) of public authorities.
The Protocol entered into force on 1 April 2005 and has (As of July 2009) been ratified by 17 member states. Several member states—Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—have not signed the protocol.
The United Kingdom government has declined to sign Protocol 12 on the basis that they believe the wording of protocol is too wide and would result in a flood of new cases testing the extent of the new provision. They believe that the phrase "rights set forth by law" might include international conventions to which the UK is not a party, and would result in incorporation of these instruments by stealth. It has been suggested that the protocol is therefore in a catch-22, since the UK will decline to either sign or ratify the protocol until the European Court of Human Rights has addressed the meaning of the provision, while the court is hindered in doing so by the lack of applications to the court concerning the protocol caused by the decisions of Europe's most populous states—including the UK—not to ratify the protocol. The UK government, nevertheless, "agrees in principle that the ECHR should contain a provision against discrimination that is free-standing and not parasitic on the other Convention rights".

I would look out for the EU demanding that any a50 deal MUST have a clause where membership of the ECHR is compulsory and no negotiable. I would be AMAZED at it not being there

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

An example I can think of. Article 14 in relation to Protocol 1 Article 1 which states:

Article 1 – property
Article 1 provides for the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions. The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged a violation of the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, also, in the uncertainty – for the owner – about the future of the property, and in the absence of an allowance.

I think there might be issues arising here in relation to EU citizens being forced to register or having problems with a mortgage purely on the basis of their nationality.

Clever lawyer who knows this stuff I'm sure would be able to start building a few cases on this.

The legal tidal wave coming.

OP posts:
woman9917 · 11/09/2017 17:54

legal tidal wave coming.
I'd say great, if so many people and their kids hadn't had their lives torn apart by this.

RedToothBrush · 11/09/2017 17:54

David Allen Green‏*@davidallengreen*

  1. Here goes: why the Withdrawal Bill is a botched Bill, and why MPs should vote against it on second reading.
  2. But first: the Bill is not about supporting or stopping Brexit - contrary to the statements of Field, Flint, etc.
  3. Like winter, Brexit is coming. The Article 50 notification has been made. UK is out on 29 March 2019 (or possibly a later agreed date).
  4. Nothing in this Bill affects the Article 50 notification. The will of the people has been expressed.
  5. Statements like Field's thereby make no sense. That decision has been made.
  6. The Bill is about how the UK government gets to that outcome. Means not end. Journey not destination.
  7. The Bill proposes three powers, the widest in modern constitutional history, to allow the government to legislate directly.
  8. In effect, minister will be able to make, amend, and repeal law, by fiat. To be mini-legislatures.
  9. Let's look at the Bill.
Click here: publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/18005.pdf 10. Clause 7(4): "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament" 11. Clause 8(2): "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament" 12. And Clause 9(2) is a beauty in how it goes even further than the last two quoted clauses. 13. Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)." 14. Let that sink in: "including modifying this Act". Think about the implication of that. 15. And what is "any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament"? Like power of Green Lantern's ring, anything you can imagine. 16."any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament" can mean: repealing and amending Acts, abolishing laws, rights, entitlements 17. These three powers are considerable legal super-weapons. Ministers become their own parliaments, law making and changing as they wish. 18. Yes the Bill offers some protections, and limitations, and time limits. But weak stuff against the legal super-powers created. 19. Article 50 has gone. Voting on today's Bill cannot stop that. Field and others explanations don't add up. 20. Today's Bill is about handing almost the entire legislative power of Westminster over to Whitehall, under the guise of Brexit. 21. The government does not need this near-absolute power of law-making for Brexit. It does not need to usurp parliament. 22. And that is why MPs should vote so to tell government to think again on this anti-parliamentary Bill, while there is still time. /ends

Again if this bill is passed without amended and protection for Rights in someway, and in particular the Human Rights Act, then expect the EU to get REALLY tough about our membership of the ECHR.

They will bind us in.

OP posts:
woman9917 · 11/09/2017 17:57

Makes me hope the tory fuckwits do pass it and then stand trial.
Be a very british Nuremberg.

RedToothBrush · 11/09/2017 18:00

Schona Jolly QC‏
@WomaninHavana
Following

More
Simply incorrect to keep suggesting a vote against #EUWithdrawalBill is a vote to frustrate Brexit. It's about our constitutional future. /1
It's about ensuring the balance of power is not transferred in an unprecedented fashion from an elected Parliament to Ministers. /2
It's about ensuring legal clarity & certainty. The Bill is shrouded in confusion - even eminent lawyers & academics can't understand it. /3
That lack of legal certainty has v serious implications for rule of law. Pointed out by many, inc HL Constitution Ctt & Dominic Grieve. /4
Lord Neuberger, outgoing President of @UKSupremeCourt, took step of speaking out to ensure clarity was provided to judges by Plmnt. /5
It's about ensuring proper safeguarding for our fundamental rights, inc equality & environmental rights rights, as done by EU law to date /6
There are plenty of recommendations as to how safeguarding of rights can be done by @Commonswomequ @EHRC @fawcettsociety @ClientEarth /7
Govt, though, must have predicted the storm that would be created by unprecedented delegated powers in Clauses 7-9 & 17 of the Bill. /8
The constitutional, legal, social & economic consequences of the Bill are extraordinary.
Yet scrutiny provisions are, at best, whimsical /9
Back in March 2017, HL Constitution Cttee recommended enhanced scrutiny procedures be used in this Bill. /10
Last week, Cttee had to correct May's suggestion it had approved Bill's scrutiny measures, published about 4 months after its report. /11
Instead, it stated Bill raises a series of "profound, wide-ranging & interlocking constitutional concerns". /12
HL Constitution Cttee further states "the Bill weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in..scope & potency" /13
The language of these Clauses, esp 9 & even 17, requires a very deep breathe. They permit the Minister to do almost anything. /14
You have to ask why the govt - this one or any future govt of any political persuasion - needs such drastically wide powers. /15
You have to ask why the Govt thought it acceptable to present a Bill in this format, with such sweeping powers & such little scrutiny /16
Short answer is, though it needs some flexibility, it doesn't need powers like this. It shd never have presented a Bill in this shape. /17
It's not good enough to hope for the best with a Bill that fundamentally alters the balance of power in our democracy. /18
It's not good enough to orally commit to protect rights without putting that commitment in writing, on the face of the Bill /19
It's not good enough to cry chaos, disorder & betrayal. That's been done by the govt's own hand in presenting a Bill in this form. /20
That's enough reason to scrap this #EUWithdrawalBill & start again, with reason, rights & a commitment to democracy in the pen's own ink./21

OP posts: