British Politics Thread

When you are in the mood for some Brexit bashing, maybe this cheers you up...or at least helps you to get rid of some pent-up anger:

Always felt that putting your anger into song is somewhat cathartic.

Regarding the whole citizenship question: As far as I know there is an international agreement to ensure that people DON'T lose their citizenship, because stateless people are overall quite a headache. I also remember vaguely that this is some concern regarding children which were born to Syrian single woman refugees because there was something in the Syrian law about citizenship being inherited over the father or something like this? I don't remember, but this points to a larger issue here: She is pregnant, isn't she? So if they take away her citizenship, they are not just punishing her, they are punishing her unborn child alongside with her. Which makes an ALREADY deeply questionable issue even WORSE.

I remember btw one case of a terrorist in Germany ending up without citizenship, but that was not a case of him getting stripped of it, but a case of him being denied a pending citizenship after he got caught planning a terrorist attack on German soil.

Edited by Swanpride on Feb 19th 2019 at 12:10:32 PM

> Her family's lawyers

"My client may have joined a terrorist group and expressed no regrets over doing so but that is no reason to take away her citizenship like that!"

It may be a violation of international law but I don't think anyone gives a shit,now if were someone else who was innocent then there would be outcry

Edited by Ultimatum on Feb 19th 2019 at 8:28:39 PM

The baby is innocent.

It doesn't matter if she's innocent or guilty; making someone stateless just isn't something you should do. It's such a violation of someone's fundamental rights and an abuse of a government's power it's hard to really sum up. what's wrong with it.

If the government were smart they could avoid that issue by stating that the baby is welcome in the UK, knowing full well that she’s not going to hand the child over in the hope of it getting a better life than she’s tried to give it.

If they felt malicious they could send people to protest the baby (who as a British citizen is entitled to protection from the British government) from the dangerous terrorist that has it in their grasp.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 19th 2019 at 8:38:08 PM

Smart and British government is sadly not compatible at the moment.

BTW, I just watched the John Oliver's segment on Brexit and I have learned three new things about the UK that isn't related to politics: Awful reality TV also exist in the UK (it's universal I guess at this point), the existence of Gogglebox (I never pay much attention to the UK before, so pardon me), and the British have an interesting taste about canned food (Not the food, but the casing. The British are really serious about treating Brexit like the aftermath of world war, huh?)

That is about it I can remember on the top of my head at the moment. The muscle motion video out of nowhere has got to be hilarious for you guys, huh?

The ones who stockpile are actually pretty smart in my book. Well, not the ones who buy those "brexit packages", that is just ridiculous, but I wouldn't trust the Tories to organize anything, never mind Brexit. The Food supply is a honest concern.

ISIS pretty much brought back the idea of hostis humanis generis. The talk has made the rounds pretty much everywhere, wouldn't be surprised if this was one more piece of international law that many will be very happy to break.

I’ve seen sources claim she has dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship, but I don’t think that’s true at all. I haven’t found a source that confirms she’s British citizenship only either, other than her being born here.

As I understand it I think she’s eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, but if she hasn’t actually applied yet (apparently she doesn’t have a Bangladeshi passport) then she’ll be stateless after this.

Her parents have apparently disputed her entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship as well.

Reading up on The Other Wiki ‘s entry on Bangladeshi citizenship, and it seems like she would be able to enter Bangladesh with the proper paperwork basically- it’s not super clear whether Bangladeshi citizenship is automatically transferred to her, but I’m leaning towards ‘not’ atm

I also doubt she has the paperwork to get the paperwork to qualify even on her, even if she technically could (maybe) qualify (or perhaps not).

Meanwhile, she's stateless. Good going, Home Office. You pricks.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 19th 2019 at 11:13:00 AM

The Right Honourable* Joan Ryan MP has joined The Independent Group. [1]

She represented Enfield North from 1997 to 2010, then again since 2015. During the Blair years she served as an assistant whip, then a junior Lord of the Treasury, then PUSS for Nationality, Citizenship & Immigration.
*Yes, she's their first privy counsellor, which forestalls any jokes about the new group being a bunch of NPCs.

Edited by TommyR01D on Feb 19th 2019 at 3:01:08 AM

I have no problem with hostis humani generis, but that doesn't mean you get to revoke someone's human rights without due process of law (in other words, a trial, not an administrative proceeding - the fact that bills of attainder are legal in the UK is an artifact of history and not relevant, IMO). Also, the UK is still a signatory to the ECHR for a couple months more.

And statelessness as a punishment is more than a violation of rights, it's a violation of the state's responsibility to keep track of and judge its citizens. If you're going to outlaw someone, you should first consider the death penalty - and by analogy, if the death penalty is off the table, so is outlawry.

I really wish we didn't act like the M Ps are somehow independent of the parties they represent. You didn't get that position just because of your own merits; if you quit you shouldn't keep your job.

"I'm going to take a stand by making sure I don't have to answer to anyone for several years." Wow. So selfless.

Edited by RainehDaze on Feb 19th 2019 at 12:03:59 PM

Jammy Duel of The Student Room posted two "beautiful ironies" regarding The Independent Group:

[1]

Though given the rest of the quote and their own profile image, got to say I wouldn't quote them.

yeah no "Vote Libertarian" makes me disregard anything from them

Eh, they have a point about the hypocrisy, though.

I lost my post. How frustrating. So, instead of responding to everything, I'm just going to respond to the following:

Based on the most reliable rough estimates that exist, the percentage of constituencies that (probably) voted Leave are as follows:

• Conservatives: 75%
• Labour: 61%

From the same study, the number of seats that (probably) voted Leave are as follows:

• Conservatives: 62% (21% Uncertain, 17% Remain)
• Labour: 56% (8% Uncertain, 36% Remain)

Corbyn did historically well in the 2017 GE, blowing political minds in the process. The vote share he won was the highest Labour share since 2001, and ranks right up there with Tony Blair's best GE results: 1997 (43.2%), 2001 (40.7%), 2017 (40%). Prior to 1997, the Labour Party hadn't done that well since 1970 (43.0%). Prior to 1970? You have to go back to 1959 (43.8%). (Source).

The way Bill passage works in Westminster is that a finite amount of time is allotted to it. That time is split into two phases: the vote phase (the Bill passes the first stage) and the amendment phase (the Bill's content can be rewritten).

The longer the vote phase takes, the less time there is to spend on amendments and vice versa. The vote phase always goes first.

When dealing with Bills they don't support, the Opposition has one of two options. The option they pick will depend on parliamentary maths.

If the Opposition has the numbers, or thinks it has the numbers in a tight situation, it fights the vote stage. When fighting for the votes, this eats up the Bill's time and leaves almost no time for any amendments. The point of this tactic is to defeat the Bill so it cannot pass (which removes the need for an amendment stage). The risk with this tactic is that it sacrifices the ability to rewrite the Bill's content for the chance to defeat it completely. If the Opposition fails at the vote stage, they've thrown away the chance to rewrite it.

If the Opposition does not have the numbers, it fights the amendment stage. There is no point fighting the vote phase when you're guaranteed to lose — all you're doing is destroying your ability to rewrite the Bill's content. So, what happens is that the Opposition does not oppse the vote phase. This ensures the vote phase passes in as little time as possible, which maximises the amount of time the Opposition can spend rewriting the Bill. The risk here is that, if the amendments fail and the Bill cannot be rewritten (at all or to the extent the Opposition wants), then the perception is to people who don't understand how Parliament works that the Opposition has sided with the government to pass a bad Bill.

In the case of A50, there were definitely not enough votes to stop the Withdrawal Bill from passing. Not even close. At this point, MPs will still reeling from the referendum result and many MPs who now want a second referendum or to withdraw A50 were at this time still in the 'shit, we've got to uphold the result for democracy's sake' mode.

So, the only option the Opposition had was to maximise the amendment phase. There was absolutely no way to defeat the Bill in the vote phase, so the only option available was to trying rewrite the hell out of it.

Labour did manage to get some of the worst parts of that Bill rewritten. They needed the help of the House of Lords to do it, but they did manage it. It wasn't as much as they wanted, but it was more than the media expected them to achieve and it was more than the Tories wanted them to achieve.

You have to remember that, in the British political system, supporting a Bill at the voting stage is not actually a sign that MPs support the Bill. I know that sounds bizarre, but Westminster's infamous for its quirks. If you want to see whether or not a Bill was genuinely popular with MPs, you have to check the amendments phases and the follow-up readings because it could be that parliament just want to gut the Bill and rewrite it instead.

Also, people tend to remember there was a three-line whip on the Bill, but don't usually understand why.

The number of whips is determined by the degree to which a new Bill impacts the constitution. The government brought the Bill and defined what whip level it was. This was a Bill with one of the biggest constitutional impacts in British history, so it was inevitably a three-line whip for both the Tories and Labour.

That is how Parliament works. And the only way to stop it working like that is for Parliament itself to vote in favour of doing things in a different way. Parliament can't even vote to change its old-fashioned 'walk through the division chamber and be head-counted' method of voting to a more modern option, so don't expect it to vote for anything more fundamental any time soon.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Feb 19th 2019 at 1:17:58 PM

Not sure I follow you there...amendment? What is there to amend? You trigger article 50 or you don't. If you do it, you put yourself on a clock so you better DON'T do it before you have a definitive plan (which includes a plan for a possible no deal brexit) and proper impact assessments, which is a point Labour could made before the vote on triggering article 50.

Remember, the EU actually didn't have any control over if and when the UK would trigger article 50, and they turned up to the negotiation table with a plan and with proper preparation for a no deal brexit starting the day it happened.

Or are you talking about the whole "final say"? Yeah, that one was important in terms of the constitution, but in terms of Brexit it was nonsense from the get go, because a final say is worthless if you are on a f... clock which ensures that you have to take whatever is still on the table. Which is exactly the situation we are now in and which I predicted back then when the whole discussion of a last vote happened. I applauded them for upholding the principle, but it didn't solve anything.

And it would have been nice if upholding the principle would have included to start a proper investigation on everything which was going on during the referendum once the first whistle-blower turned up.

Sorry, I am ranting again...still frustrated with this shambles of a so called democracy from my perspective.

The Withdrawal Bill had to be passed before A50 could be triggered. That isn't an issue with A50 itself. That's an issue with the British system.

Parliament is sovereign. It had to give Theresa May permission to trigger A50. But there was far more to the Bill than just that.

Do parties in the UK have any legal status beyond name registration?

Yup.

I don't think we can assume that the Independent Group's plan to target Labour marginals will succeed. It operates on their assumption that they get votes through name recognition rather than through their party's manifesto, and nothing I've seen about them suggests that their confidence is particularly warranted... particularly since the Electoral Commission may be about to take a good long look at their funding mechanisms.

Edited by Iaculus on Feb 19th 2019 at 2:28:36 PM