Westminstenders: Zombies don't have friends. Is Johnson the de facto PM now?

[RedToothBrush]

And so the Zombie PM lives on.

Some might say that the Tory Party conference has been the thing that has really killed her, with one more blow needed to the head.

But had she already lost the battle within the party?

What is curious is how its now the hard liners who have got behind May. Why is this? They did so BEFORE the conference, not after May's speech. They are not known for suffering those they see as weak. They are there for target practice. Why have leopards seemingly changed their spots?

The truth is that just before and after her Florence speech Boris Johnson repeatedly undermined her and showed his authority was superior to May's. He may have backed down publically, but May backed down with policy, doing u-turns on her 'concessions' to the EU. Johnson was leading May and the Tory Party and not the other way around. That's what the conference was about and May's bad luck just played to their agenda.

May could be likened to the elderly Hindenburg, desperately trying to cling to power, and trying to appease the far right on the advise of von Papen who thought it could be controlled and contained. Whilst the right push it further and further, after each concession to them which they take as weakness, for their own political gain and shot at power. What would a successful far right leader in this country have to look like? A cut price Churchill pushing the values of fake patriotism? The historical parallel isn't hard to find and to fit to the political reality of today.

The irony emerging is that the EU Commission is starting to look like its more on our side than the EU27, tired of our nonsense and insults.

In this situation there can be no deal. Unless something drastic happens we are headed directly for a state of emergency.

The much forgotten and equally important dealing over the WTO is going as badly as the EU one. What do we expect with Liam Fox in charge and next to no accountability from the press or from parliament?

The hard right, obviously are making the calculated gamble that they have seized the hostage May away from the Liberals who had started to get her to see the reality. They will now do what they can to protect her, and support her. Afterall, why would you challenge her, if you felt you could control her? They have the perfect scapegoat and can protect their own political hides for the time being.

The most obvious sign of this, is Gove leaping to her defence in a way that is so ridiculously over the top.

The hard right have nothing to fear from a chaotic exit. Indeed they have much to profit from it. And they always have the means to leave if it gets too bad. They fear staying in the EU. Why IS that? Its almost as if many of them have something to hide...

Grants Shapp's intervention, is beginning to look like he was set up, with it being leaked that he was leading calls for a leadership election privately and had no intention of doing so publically until outted. The effect has been it has shored up her position, making it harder for May to even to resign either for personal or political reasons. It also casts any dissenters as 'traitors' whilst the hard right casts the image of the 'loyalists'.

Of course the hard right's gamble also rests on three other things; they know they are starting to lose the argument, they have done the maths and don't think they will have the numbers to ensure a hard right candidate makes the final two in a leadership battle and they think they can control the rest of the party because they fear Corbyn more.

Perhaps the best chance we have for a deal now does lie in a collapse of the government in the near future. This seems to be the position that the EU are taking by stepping up talks with Labour.

Just how much will Tory Liberals act in the best interests of the country and stand up to the hard right of the party. They have the numbers to get things through with Labour. But Labour want the government to collapse, so the balance of power ultimately relies on the hard right's support. Its hard to envisage Labour stepping up in the national interest any more than the Tory Right compromising.

I suspect the Hard Right ultimately fear the EU more than Corbyn. If a collapse happens it will be because the hard right will not compromise and they are prepared to push their luck on that, and this is the weapon they have over May. I suspect they figure they have little to lose by pursuing this direction. Its do or die for them anyway.

Of course what happens at home and what happens in the EU talks are also different things. The UK could well be promising more than they say at home, and this seems to be the case. But the infighting at home, jeopardises a deal even if one is reached by the EU commission as our diplomatic appearance through our antics and rhetoric at home, will convince the EU27 to reject it, and any compromise. Another gamble the Tory Right might be keen on to win over the domestic audience with their faux patriotism.

Of course, May could simply resign... She won't. She's a politician who lacks self awareness and arrogant in her own political ambition. A bit of a pep talk about how great she is and how she is doing things right and she believes it, as she is totally disconnected from the reality of things as the election proved in all its glory. She only listens to voices she agrees with...

So the Zombie PM lead by the De Facto PM will limp on. Its a game of chicken over who will lead to a collapse of government now between the liberals and the hard right.

At least for now. A leadership election is what is wanted by the press but not the party. The media want the drama more than the Tories.

If it hasn't changed within a month or so, the moment may have passed and it might be too late to salvage anything, such is the damage being done to our diplomatic relations. Start prepping in serious by Christmas, if we are still headed this way.

Please tell me, my reading of the situation is wrong...

woman , I'm afraid I don't know what would be the best strategy to take in Somerville's situation.

Somerville, is this a bit of a thrashing out of the situation? The crux is that a person with an Irish identity from NI should be regarded as having equal status to a British identity from NI. In and by the UK, as underpinned by the GFA. I do think it would have to be established in England. As it is where the school is and where the most of the institutions which govern the UK are located. Of course, maybe it could be taken by a body or official from NI. Maybe a referral in the interests of NI people. But I don't know who or how. If I come across anything, I will of course pass that on. I don't know if you could get legal advice and letter to elucidate this point and then point out to the school that they are discriminate against an identity that should be like for like if coming from NI. This is an Irish identity from NI, not an Irish identity from a different jurisdiction to the UK. The GFA allows for this identity as a sole identity as of a right for someone in a part of the UK.

Of course, another point is that Independent schools seem to have a lot of leeway in their criteria for different things. As this is a new requirement, with your child already in the school, I don't know if you could cry foul on the part of your child. They probably have terms and conditions stating they can change things. However, the point still stands that they are discriminating against your right to your identity and would not if you were a citizen from NI with a British identity.

It is the bloody stress, isn't it? Making you fight for it. There is the point people are making that the entitlement to a British identity is there, so to make life easy one could go with that one. And of course, if that feels like a principle has been trodden on, the option is still there to just say the child has the requirement through the deceased parent. It would avoid the issue.

Oleanna, the whole point may be that the GFA gave the right of people in NI to identify solely as Irish. In this case, Somerville should not be regarded as having a foreign nationality if identifying as Irish. The passport is issued by another jurisdiction, but is only symbol the right of a person from part of the UK to not have to assume a British identity and not be discriminated against because of it.

Somerville, I hope you don't mind me laying it out like that. Just say 'nuff if I'm bloody irritating not helping.

Looks like DEFRA are getting worried now: they are recruiting two Grade 6 strategy advisors (one Brexit, one general department stuff) and seventeen Grade 7s - yes, you read that right....

Job advert here

Just had a you got poll through
Asking what I thought of TM and whether released roght asking her to go!!

Faisal Islam‏*@faisalislam*

To @Stone_SkyNews - davis says: at eu summit "We would like the EU27 to give to Michel the means to broaden the negotiation"

Note here: Barnier not the problem. EU not the problem. But those individual countries. Davis is acknowledging this.

EU27 not the Commission, mean the EU are being inflexible. Why would they be flexible after the way we are treating their citizens and have disrespected them???

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/12/mps-should-not-feel-obliged-to-back-brexit-says-john-bercow?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
MPs should not feel obliged to back Brexit, says John Bercow

Commons Speaker says it is ‘opinion, rather than a constitutional fact’ that MPs must vote through Brexit because of referendum result

In a wide-ranging Q&A, Bercow also referred to the Daily Mail as “the Daily Fail” for its criticism of parliament’s new £7m education centre, though he himself has often been the target of the newspaper’s attacks.

Bercow was the target of a short-lived plot by Conservative MPs to oust him from the role, which he has held since 2009, with several alleging he had failed to be impartial having declared he voted remain in the EU referendum, among other accusations.

Speaking to the Hansard Society, Bercow said it was an “opinion, rather than a constitutional fact” that MPs were obliged to vote through Brexit because of the referendum result.

“There will be some members of parliament who say: ‘I want to be able at the end of all this if I’m not satisfied, to say no, to try to persuade other members of parliament to say no, and to hope that no might delay Brexit or prevent Brexit,’” he said, in comments reported by Politico. “Do they have a right to argue that point of view? They absolutely do.”

Cailleach, I get that (even if the school doesn't - and let's be honest, most people in England are pretty ignorant about the details of the GFA)

If I were a lawyer looking at the case, I would start by wanting to understand what the school was trying to achieve by introducing the new requirement to have a British passport. Is it a legitimate policy aim, and is the way that they are trying to achieve that aim proportionate? If they are trying to ensure that the scholarship is only awarded to a British child, then it is odd that they want to see the parents' passport, not the child's, for example. But even if they have determined that the way that they will administer the new policy is through the parent's passport, all they need to do is add a small clause to the policy which recognises that an Irish passport when issued to someone from NI meets the criteria that they have set out.

You'd want to watch it there, TheElements, a person could become quite cynical. You should pull yourself back before you get there.

The thing about hard Brexit being porn for the extremists. Bill Cash was on TV and my husband just said 'those guys are just nutcases'. Where did we ever have Bill Cash, Peter Bone or the others on showing their great capabilities about the serious issues facing the country? They have been there for decades. But now they are all prescient geniuses.

What you would love to do (but can't because they would destroy the country) is put them all in charge. And see what a wonderful job they would make of everything.

Oleanna, which recognises that an Irish passport when issued to someone from NI meets the criteria that they have set out.

Yes, that is the crux of it, isn't it? Aside from introducing the new criterion for children already in the school.

I had a little look at the British Overseas Territories a while ago. People can hold British passports, but without the right of abode.
Interesting as when these Territories were on the Lords Committee about exiting the EU, someone said to me they trade in British passports among other (maybe dodgy) stuff. Now the EU currency of the passport may be gone. Possibly along with the ease of hiding money and laundering. But people always find a way for this. Just a new tack.

From that civil service Jobs link

Nationality statement
Candidates will be subject to UK immigration requirements as well as Civil Service nationality rules.

If you're applying for a role requiring security clearance please be aware that foreign or dual nationality is not an automatic bar. However certain posts may have restrictions which could affect those who do not have sole British nationality or who have personal connections with certain countries outside the UK .

It isn't just the school.

Peter Foster‏*@pmdfoster*

As we warned a week ago #Brexit talks are deadlocked.
But Barnier and Davis hinted at progress in Dec
Why? 1/
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/05/brexit-deadlock-looms-european-negotiators-say-have-lost-faith/
Brexit deadlock looms as European negotiators say they have lost faith in May

First, where we are at: UK made big concessions in Florence on $$$ and agreeing to put A50 Withdrawal agreement direct into UK law /2
The UK is frustrated by EU27 response.
Feels Florence deserved better and won't move again until has something to show for it. /3
Per UK source: €20bn for this MFF is show of good faith. It must buy future relation talks or UK will 'pay twice'. /4
Current UK politics won't accept Florence concession if UK get's nothing for it.
So UK pols making a show of hanging tough. /5
For it's part EU also playing hardball.
Ironically it's not Barnier who is the bogeyman but EU 27 - Fr, Ger - who are being tough. /6
The landing zones on Citizens Rights are clearly there, now May has made big concession on 'direct effect' /7
Davis has offered grand bargain on EU right of return for UK future free movement.
And understand cut-off date is agreed for Brexit day /8
Also family reunions could be fixed by time-limited grace period during transition say.
Shorter: its largely done. /9
Given May's record of caving - on sequencing in July, on money/citizens in Sept, there is expectation she will cave again in Dec /10
But May needs enough to show for this - ie opening to shape of future deal - while EU gets commitment on pensions/loans /11
But how?
Current idea seems to be to agree a 'scoping' exercise among EU 27 on transition and future relations, but w/in A50 scope. /12
EU dip notes that includes "taking a/c of future relationship"
So Barnier mandate remains fixed. But EU 27 scope future
Question... /13
Is 'scoping' talk enough for May to claim she's triggered future relationship discussion, and write necessary cheque/commitment? /14
Does the EU27 version of compromise look anything like saleable to UK domestic audience?
There is big risk EU overplays hand. /15
But fundamentally both UK and EU27 seem to agree that 'no deal' is a risk - but not really a viable option. /16
Plans to buy up motorway service stations as customs parks are really for domestic UK consumption. EU not fooled or frightened. /17
So all eyes on next week's EUCO summit.
Expect more brinkmanship, but perhaps underlying concession on future from EU27. /18
Then two months of rising tension as UK tries to get max possible for its 'money card'.
There may even be a walkout.
But ultimately... /19
My money 80-20 is on a deal, unless EU puts on more pressure that Theresa May's brittle premiership can bear. /20 END

Jon Worth‏*@jonworth*

You don’t mention NI in the thread. You assume there’s enough there already to move to the next phase?

Peter Foster‏ @pmdfoster

Sorry. Yes. Don't hear Ireland as obstacle to sufficient progress.
Truth is neither side wants to be too honest about N-S fix.

Rowena Kay‏**@rowena**_kay

Neither side wants to be too honest? You mean sea border?

(((Tim O'Connor)))‏*@timoconnorbl*

Which would suit us fine, and is, in truth, the only practically workable solution (whatever about politically).

Rowena Kay‏**@rowena**_kay

Yeah. Still think it could be a hill the DUP will die on. Which wouldn't matter if May hadn't had that needless election....

Cailleach - those nationality restrictions have been around for many many years, and only apply to a small number of posts with high security clearance requirements.

I wonder if any NI person who only holds an Irish passport has been refused top security clearance solely because of the nationality / passport situation? The vetting process is so secretive - with limited appeal rights - that I would imagine that the reason would have been obscured. (As well as not many NI people holding Irish passports only wanting to work for Perfidious Albion in roles requiring security clearance)

One of Brexit's leading lights weighs in on the important stuff (and gets some unimpressed replies) :

John Redwood @johnredwood
The Chancellor must get the Treasury to have more realistic, optimistic forecasts & to find the money for a successful economy post Brexit.

at John Redwood. Give it up, J.

Having a look at laws which might apply to your situation Somervile:

Starting with EU Law :

EU Race Equality Directive 2000 seems to cover it:

The principle rules laid down are as follows:

1. Implements the principle of equal treatment between people irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
2. Gives protection against discrimination in employment and training, education, social protection (including social security and healthcare), social advantages, membership and involvement in organisations of workers and employers and access to goods and services, including housing.
3. Contains definitions of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment and prohibits the instruction to discriminate and victimisation.
4. Allows for positive action measures to be taken, in order to ensure full equality in practice.
5. Gives victims of discrimination a right to make a complaint through a judicial or administrative procedure, associated with appropriate penalties for those who discriminate.
6. Allows for limited exceptions to the principle of equal treatment, for example in cases where a difference in treatment on the ground of race or ethnic origin constitutes a genuine occupational requirement.
7. Shares the burden of proof between the complainant and the respondent in civil and administrative cases, so that once an alleged victim establishes facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination, it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the equal treatment principle.
8. Provides for the establishment in each Member State of an organisation to promote equal treatment and provide independent assistance to victims of racial discrimination.

This is the actual directive:
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0043:EN:HTML
EU: Race Equality Directive 2000

(12) To ensure the development of democratic and tolerant societies which allow the participation of all persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, specific action in the field of discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin should go beyond access to employed and self-employed activities and cover areas such as education, social protection including social security and healthcare, social advantages and access to and supply of goods and services.

(13) To this end, any direct or indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin as regards the areas covered by this Directive should be prohibited throughout the Community. This prohibition of discrimination should also apply to nationals of third countries, but does not cover differences of treatment based on nationality and is without prejudice to provisions governing the entry and residence of third-country nationals and their access to employment and to occupation.

Then there is the status of Irish (and EU citizens) in the UK.
www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-the-status-of-eu-nationals-in-the-uk
Statement: the status of EU nationals in the UK

Irish nationals enjoy separate rights, under various pieces of legislation, which allow Irish nationals residing in the UK to be treated in the same way as British nationals in most circumstances. There is no change to this position.

In other words the official government position is that EU nationals status is unchanged and Irish citizens have rights protected under separate legislation to EU law (aka in UK Law).

So lets talk about UK Law

This falls under the Equality Act 2010.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
There is a whole chapter on Education. It also later has a chapter on exceptions to education. A chapter which does NOT include withholding scholarships.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/education/discrimination-in-education/overview-of-discrimination-in-education/
Here is the citizens advice on the matter which is rather easier to understand. It includes being discriminated against whilst applying and it applies to ALL schools in the UK whether private or public.

In other words, this school is ALREADY breaking the law. They don't have to do anything further.

Personally, I would be sending copies of the citizens advice information, together with a copy of the government's current advice on EU citizens, and a copy of the section relating to education in the The Equality Act 2010 to the school, asking for a full and proper explanation of why they were breaking the law.

I wouldn't actually see a lawyer nor threatening them with a lawyer - at this stage.

I would be really interested to see a response to why they were discriminating against you on the application under the current law.

It actually does not matter whether the law changes in the future: at this moment in time they are ALREADY breaking the law. And that's the angle you should be taking. Imagine of everyone took the attitude that we can discriminate or otherwise ignore the current laws we have in place because they might be about to change because of Brexit. That's utterly ridiculous. The law is black and white in terms of it always applying until the day it is repealed. There is no 'it might be changing'.

If that fails, I would threaten the lawyer, see if you got a response, and then I would hire the lawyer.

I would not indulge their current demands at all. They are in breech of the law.

Going forward, whilst status might change whilst your son is in education, the reality of that, is a) you're Irish and that's a stronger position than being another EU national as you are covered by other UK law and b) is it in the interests of the school to pull a scholarship part way through? c) The Equality Act 2010 isn't EU law. It will need to be repealed, and there's not much chance of that within the next few years, even with Henry VIII powers for Brexit (which are unlikely to go that far, if the new today that the Committee Stage of the Repel Bill, isn't scheduled for next week which I'd take as being because they need more time for that raft of amendments...).

I'm not a lawyer, but I honestly can not see a single reason why or how they can justify what they are doing and I'm pretty damn confidence in the correspondence they have already given they would be deemed by a judge to be in breech of the law and that you don't fall foul of any exemption.

Oh yeah, and it doesn't have to be direct discrimination to fall foul of the law. It can also be indirect...

I'd be taking a particular look at the example in the citizen's advice which says that it is indirect discrimination to say that nationals of another country have a different set of entry requirement / criteria. Different nationality btw falls under the 'race' classification of the Equality Act 2010. You can not discriminate on the basis of nationality under the act within education, relating to entry. Very arguable that indirect discrimination would be to say that you didn't quality for a scholarship which British citizens and passport holders did on the basis of your nationality alone. And that discrimination is about the application process too (so trying to put you off by saying you need the 'right' passport / citizenship') would put them in breech now.

Commons Speaker says it is ‘opinion, rather than a constitutional fact’ that MPs must vote through Brexit because of referendum result

POW !

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/12/jeremy-corbyn-says-would-vote-remain-second-eu-referendum?CMP=twt_gu
Jeremy Corbyn says he would vote remain in a second EU referendum
Labour leader reveals position as he criticises government’s ‘shocking’ lack of progress in Brexit discussions

Jeremy Corbyn says he would vote remain in a second EU referendum

Following on from yesterdays news that he would also not vote for a no deal, Labour are still in the running as a Lurking household option.

If Labour propose a proper second referendum (minimum turnout and majority ?) ???????????

ian bremmer‏*@ianbremmer*

Countries with most press freedom, 2017:

1 Norway
2 Sweden
3 Finland
16 Germany
22 Canada
39 France
40 UK
43 US
63 S Korea
72 Japan
103 Brazil
136 India
148 Russia
155 Turkey
176 China
180 N Korea (last)

Reporters without Borders

rsf.org/en/ranking_table
Here's the full list.

Amongst those higher than the UK:

Estonia, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Surinam, Namibia, Uruguay & South Africa

Score based on criteria of:
1 / Pluralism [indicator scorePlur]
Measures the degree to which opinions are represented in the media.

2/ Media independence [indicator scoreInd]
Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence.

3/ Environment and self-censorship [indicator scoreEA]
Analyses the environment in which news and information providers operate.

4/ Legislative framework [indicator scoreCL]
Measures the impact of the legislative framework governing news and information activities.

5/ Transparency [indicator scoreTra]
Measures the transparency of the institutions and procedures that affect the production of news and information.

6/ Infrastructure [indicator scoreInf]
Measures the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information.
A seventh indicator based on data gathered about abuses and acts of violence against journalists and media during the period evaluated is also factored into the calculation.

7/ Abuses [indicator scoreExa]
Measures the level of abuses and violence.
Each indicator is given a score between 0 and 100

UK's assessment:

A Worrying Trend
A heavy-handed approach towards the press - often in the name of national security - has resulted in the UK slipping down the World Press Freedom Index. Parliament adopted the most extreme surveillance legislation in UK history, the Investigatory Powers Act, with insufficient protection mechanisms for whistleblowers, journalists, and their sources, posing a serious threat to investigative journalism. Even more alarming, the Law Commission's proposal for a new 'Espionage Act' would make it easy to classify journalists as 'spies' and jail them for up to 14 years for simply obtaining leaked information. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 remains cause for concern - in particular, the law's punitive cost-shifting measure that could hold publishers liable for the costs of all claims made against them, regardless of merit. The seizure by UK border authorities of a Syrian journalist's passport at the request of the Assad regime sent the worrying signal that critical foreign journalists traveling to the UK could be targeted by their own governments.

....and you've not even mentioned Super Injunctions

Thought I'd look at the previous years rankings, as I guessed the UK had dropped.
38 in 2016
34 in 2015
33 IN 2014
29 in 2013 and 2012
For some reason I can't get 2011 up

But 19 in 2010.

Prior we seemed to be skirting in the 20s

What a drop.

John Redwood @johnredwood
The Chancellor must get the Treasury to have more realistic, optimistic forecasts & to find the money for a successful economy post Brexit

Yes the forecasts must be more optimistic. If they're not optimistic enough you must be writing them wrong.

JC has just gone up in my estimation.

John Redwood @johnredwood

The Chancellor must get the Treasury to have more realistic, optimistic forecasts & to find the money for a successful economy post Brexit

Who died and put that wanker in charge ?