Westministenders: Amber Alert

[RedToothBrush]

The coming week is a busy one.

First on the menu is the fate of Amber Rudd, who after her long awaited fifth apology and denial that she saw a memo with targets on (and Brandon Lewis took the responsibility for her) ANOTHER leak has come out of a letter from her to the PM, talking about, you've guessed it Home Office targets.

She is to give a speech to the HoC on Monday. After avoiding the chop/resignation on Friday and receiving the PM's kiss of death with a "The Home Secretary has my full confidence" statement, rumours are most definitely not going away about her resignation.

If this happens, she is almost certain to go to the Naughty Corner to add to May's woes with the other rebels. This is not the week that May will appreciate it.

Watch out for Sajid Javid making more unsubtle hints that he wants the job and how it will be great PR for the party.

The EU withdrawal Bill is in the HoL again tomorrow. Last week it suffered numerous government defeats relating to the Customs Union and the limiting of Henry VIII powers. With the LDs and Labour control most of the house and together with cross benchers and the (to date no less than 17) Conservative Rebels, expect more defeats and amendments to be sent back to the Commons.

Today there is an amendment tabled by Viscount Hailsham (ex-MP Douglas Hogg) with Labour and Lib Dem support. It is being touted as a 'Lords Veto' to block Brexit by some, but is about making sure the government is held to account and does not overstep its powers by not consulting with parliament over final terms. It would in effect strengthen the power of the House of Commons (rather than the Lords) to influence the Withdrawal Bill.

So its quite a big and significant one.

If this wasn't enough, there is a key crucial vote over the Customs Union. Its been touted as Schrodinger's confidence vote. Its not the final vote on the matter (that's later in May) nor is a true confidence vote due to the Fixed Parliament Act, but at the same time it is a real test of May's commitment to leaving the Custom's Union and a real test of the resolve of the rebels. Last week several Conservatives who previously had not rebelled were dropping large hints they would, plus there is the fate of Rudd, who if she wants a future as an MP will find it difficult not to rebel due to her constituency being hugely remain and only having a majority of 300.

If May fails to follow through and bows to pressure from the rebels, Johnson and Davis have threatened to resign and there is some suggestion that letters will go to the 1922 Committee's Graham Brady.

May also has been put under significant pressure by Brexiteers to sack civil servant Ollie Robbins from the Cabinet Office (who has effectively taken over Brexit negotiations from Davis) because he's too Remainy got his hands tied with no where to go because reality.

Other things on the cards:
Tuesday: The Sanctions and Money Laundering Bill is back in the Commons. It might be worth a look at what goes on there (and who takes part).
Wednesday: Labour's Opposition Bill is about Windrush. Expect it to be last minute campaigning for the local elections every bit as much as about the scandal.
The Withdrawal Bill is in the Lords again.
Thursday: We get to listen to David Davis (if he hasn't resigned) making excuses in the HoC whilst in the Lords there is a debate on 'Brexit: Sanctions Policy' so another chance for them to point out great big wacking holes in government Brexit Policy.

Thursday is also the day of the Local Elections, so although Parliament adjourns on Thursday, we have a full day of spin on how Labour 'won' and are going plant magic money trees everywhere (to replace the ones they cut down in Sheffield no doubt) or how the campaign for bins now means that the Tories now have a 'mandate to leave the customs union'. Joy.

Also on the radar are sexual misconduct allegations against Labour's John Woodcock (the much hated by the left John Woodcock) and Labour and the expulsion of Marc Wadworth in the midst of the anti-Semitism row and threats the grass roots will revolt over it. Tuesday is also MayDay (a chequered day in Labour's history) and a mass resignation from the Labour Party by women is planned.

And I'm definitely not betting against there being a likely to be another scandal that rears its head because that's just British Politics at the moment.

But GOOD NEWS.

Eurovision starts next week!
(Israel have to be my fav - and are favs to win - but I do like our entry. Though this year looks to be a good year and our unashamed goodbye to the EU probably will be lost amongst them unless she pulls a blinder).

Mother My employer says they could easily get me a visa if need be, which would last for 5 years, even though I am retiring Feb 2020.

I would have accumulated 5 consecutive years living in Germany, so would be eligible to apply for permanent residence - but may have to pass a language test for that too - misti has encouraged me , re my disabilities.
I have satisfactory German for reading, writing & scientific work - but rooms so often have dreadful acoustics or I can't read the print

The hope for people like me and your DH is that, even if Brexit is cocked up, the European Parliament will bring in that proposal of EU citizenship / right to remain for €200 p.a.

Failing that, maybe individual countries will waive tests

< crosses fingers with Mother >

Mother I'm sure your employer could apply for your 5-year visa, like mine

• we have lots of scientists from India, S Korea etc and it has never been a problem

Then you would obviously have your 5 years at some time

Still concerned about the possibility in the future of many people not being able to renew UK passport if one doesn't know GP details.

Many of us plebs (especially those born to elderly parents who were also born to elderly parents) don't know such details and our GPs are not important enough to be recorded.

Surely it can't be legal to remove citizenship from a whole wodge of people by requiring new info that many won't be able to obtain.
In fact, unless someone is naturalised, is it allowed under international law to remove their citizenship under any circumstances ?

Records are more difficult to obtain if GPs were from developing countries
Isn't that sneaky ethnic cleansing, which I believe is against international law ?

Not surprising May & the hard right want to leave the ECHR too - that has clear law & teeth too.
With Corbyn flirting with anti-immigrant populism, I don't trust him on this either, if he thinks it will affect target voter groups.

Back to the teaching of history, and to narratives, yet again...

www.bbc.com/news/stories-44008751
So depressing.

Today both women say they are concerned about history repeating itself. Baldock says she knows children now learn a lot about World War One but fears they are not taught enough about World War Two. If they were, she thinks, it would help them understand the contemporary world, and enable them to see the danger of intolerance.

For his part, Ivor Perl, who has spoken widely about his experiences in schools, is concerned that understanding of the Holocaust in Britain is too narrow.

"People always ask me if I hate Germans, but it was the Hungarian boys I used to play football with in my home town who rounded us up into the ghetto with sticks" he says.

One person who was fascinated to read Nutley's post about the Woodcote boys is Elizabeth Yates, clerk of Ascot's parish council, who moved to the area from Mill Hill in North London 18 years ago.

"This is not an area normally associated with this kind of tale," she says. "People are always surprised when they discover I am Jewish and often say, 'I didn't think we had people like you in the area!'"

She is keen for the story to be used in local schools, partly because her own children's Holocaust education - which began with the two of them being invited up on to the stage at a school assembly along with two German boys - left room for improvement.

"The teacher gave a brief outline of the Holocaust, and as a result one of the German boys was beaten up in the playground," she says.

"I think we can and should improve on that in Ascot.

People always ask me if I hate Germans, but it was the Hungarian boys I used to play football with in my home town who rounded us up into the ghetto with sticks," he says

Trying again.

I'm learning something new every day.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691774/Nationality-MasterFeesLeaflet_2018_Final_06-04-18.pdf

The adult fee is £1330. It costs £1012 per child under 18. Hope no-one has a large family, then.

Amusingly, it only costs £372 to renounce British citizenship.

To be fair, they say that if your application is rejected, they'll refund the £80 fee for the induction ceremony. So your failure will only have cost you £1250 as an adult and £ 932 for a child and you won't have to sing the National Anthem.

BigChoc, if you have diagnosed disabilities then I am absolutely sure that provisions would need to be made. You also need to check out the rules about language requirements: here in France unless something has changed recently over 60s are not required to take the language test for citizenship.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/06/at-least-1000-highly-skilled-migrants-wrongly-face-deportation-experts-reveal

More hostile environment...

That Guardian article on the highly skilled:

In one case, the applicant’s tax returns were scrutinised by three different appeal courts who had found no evidence of any irregularities. The same figures are nevertheless used as the basis for a 322(5) refusal because of basic tax errors allegedly made by the Home Office itself.

Highly Skilled Migrants is a support group that represents over 600 workers and says it is in contact with over 400 more, most of whom are facing deportation under section 322(5), with the rest still waiting for a decision by the Home Office. Aditi Bhardwaj, one of the organisers, said the group has raised about £40,000 to challenge the Home Office in the courts.

“Ten members of our group have taken the Home Office to the first tier tribunal over their use of 322(5) in the past six months. Nine of these won their cases, with the appeal judges ruling the government’s use of section 322(5) was wrong,” said Bhardwaj.

“At best, this suggests that the Home Office is recklessly incompetent in its use of 322(5). At worst, however, the section is being applied by the Home Office so often and being overturned so frequently when challenged at the highest level, that I question whether there is a blanket policy which the Home Office is using internally, which no one is aware about.”

You've scared the crap out of me bigchoc and lindt.
There are many known unknowns and even more unknown unknowns atm. The proportion of English inhabitants whose lineage goes back more than one generation must be very small.
recklessly incompetent This sort of business is made deliberately random. Not nice. So many of us are in the same boat. Or similar ones.
I want to deport myself asap.

Saw this in The 48% Facebook group and thought it would be useful to those Westministenders who lived in areas that voted on Thursday and want to disabuse Labour of its wilful denial belief that its Brexit strategy had no impact on its vote

John McDonnell has just been on Andrew Marr and said Remain didn’t effect the labour vote. Time to put him straight.Use this form to tell labour you didn’t vote for them because they are pro Brexit and you won’t until they start fighting against our EU exit.

https://action.labour.org.uk/page/s/policy-contact-form

Pedant in me itches to correct "effect" to "affect"

Jo Maugham qc @ jolyonmaugham
What is going on with deportations for tax discrepancies?

A short THREAD (and a health warning: not all of these cases are the same.)

If you file a self-assessment return, the law enables you to amend that return within a year without penalty. And amending your own return is typically characteristic of 'good' taxpayer behaviour.

So why is the Home Office deporting people for doing what the law permits and is typically characteristic of good behaviour? Well, there's more to this than meets the eye.

To get a renewal of this type of visa you have to hit a particular income level: let's call it 60.

And people were applying for visas showing that they had an income of 60 or more.

What then happened was that some visa applicants believed the Home Office was (and maybe it was - I don't know) starting to cross check income levels reported on visa applications with HMRC self-assessment returns.

And they had declared to HMRC income levels of less than 60. In other words the income levels they had declared to HMRC were less than the levels that would enable them to qualify for a visa.

And it was this perceived or actual change of policy by HMRC that caused many to amend their self-assessment returns upwards to show an income of more than 60, an income (in other words) that enabled them to qualify for a visa.

So, stand back and put yourself in the shoes of the Home Office confronted with someone who has amended their tax return from below 60 to above 60.

What is the 'good' explanation for that amendment?

Someone has declared to HMRC a lower income (say 50) than the income declared to the Home Office (say 65). What are the possible explanations for that discrepancy?

At face value it looks like either (1) 65 is the true income, in which case the visa applicant has (likely deliberately) declared too low an income to HMRC, which would be a very serious matter or...

(2) The 50 declared to HMRC is the true income and the individual is self-amending to pretend an income of 65, high enough to qualify for a visa.

But the reality is the applicant doesn't have the income level necessary to qualify for a visa.

Let me repeat my 'health warning' from the top of this thread: not all of these cases are the same. But I have had extensive conversations with immigration specialists and I have not found a case that doesn't have these essential features.

We can properly ask about the income level requirements - but that seems to me to be a reasonable judgment for the Government to make (I express no personal view). Most Governments are more ready to take higher earning than lower earning immigrants.

And we can properly ask the Home Office to show compassion where there are exceptional circumstances. But exceptional circumstances are exceptional.

I hardly need say it gives me no pleasure to write this thread.

I passionately believe my country is enriched by immigration and want immigrants to be treated with compassion, just like UK citizens.

But, on this issue, I think the Home Office may be being unfairly treated. ENDS

This is a concequence of these visas being related to income rather than skills. So we end up deporting people with skills we need because of how our visa system is constructed.

Maugham also went on to say he's been looking for a good test case in this group but hasn't found one yet.

Thanks prettybird I have just sent a strongly worded message to labour about my lost vote.

I suspect that there is much more to it with the 'tax discrepancies'. Years ago I worked for what was then just the Inland Revenue. The self employed regularly filed a return with estimated figures on, so as to meet the deadlines, but then amended it to the actual figures as they became fully known. The other concern I would have is that a self employed persons income can genuinely vary - one who had an income of 65k one year might easily end up with one of 59k the next - yet averaged over a period of years they would comfortably meet the requirements. So once again, it seems like Home Office targets have come into force. As you say Red it's related to income not skill. The end result is much needed doctors are excluded, but a moneyed crook would be welcomed. Far from letting the HO off the hook on this one, this sounds like another policy with Theresa May's fingerprints all over it - a policy designed by a person who obeys the rules, and lacks the vision to know when the rules have to be more flexible. In other walks of life TM would probably described as a jobsworth.

Thank you prettybird completed and sent. They have lost millions of our votes nationally ( and campaigners). Lib dems won local mayor elections. Remain Labour would have won.

He is wrong to assert that changing your income upwards is 'a very serious matter'.

HMRC allows for amended returns to be filed within one year, after all. This indicates that there are enough people in the category of uncertain income earners to warrant the accommodation, and that HMRC would prefer to have their taxes late than never.

Amongst all the unjust consequences of Brexit, this is one area that doesn't get mentioned much: UK citizens losing their Freedom of Movement rights. I think many people will regret this once they fully realise they no longer have the right to travel to, or live, study and work in the EU. Maybe in particular younger people.

Here are two similar petitions about it; one for U.K. citizens, and one also mentioning EU citizens:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/208007
(Only a few weeks to get enough signatures to get a Govt response.)

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/213922

signed both

Thanks, prettybird. I live in Wandsworth which Labour had (hubristically) boasted it would take from the Conservatives in the local elections (although I had my doubts). It was kind of a relief to have the opportunity to tell them why so many people here had decided not to vote for them.

I think being part of the local elections and all-nighter at the count I pulled may have sent me over the edge. In the last two nights I've had a very vivid dream that the local chair of the Lib Dems was elected Mayor of Tower Hamlets (not our area, nor was he standing!) and last night had an interesting dream debate as to whether or not it was time to disenfranchise cats.

dobby

UK citizens losing their Freedom of Movement rights.

Well, some UK citizens. Unless (or until ) dual UK/EU nationality is banned (or not recognised by the UK) then people like myself and DW can play "choose the passport".

If Brexiteers don't like that, they can go fuck themselves.

Theresa May, as Home Secretary, threatened that Scots might uniquely not be allowed dual nationality with the UK if Scotland voted for independence, so who knows what rules she might choose to change regarding dual nationality

“In fact, unless someone is naturalised, is it allowed under international law to remove their citizenship under any circumstances ?”

I was born in Germany to British parents: my father was stationed there with the British Army.

Acting on scare stories about children being forced to fight for the Germans in the event of another war, my mother got us naturalised.

When it came to getting my own British passport years later, I was effectively told the naturalisation certificate wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

The fact that I was born in a British Military hospital and had British naturalisation papers was not proof that I was British.