General British politics discussion thread

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118052508#Comment_118052508

No the terrorists I was referring to were the ones released under the various Northern Ireland agreements.

If you can't even prove in a court that someone was in ISIS then it makes taking their citizenship away a complete disgrace

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118052720#Comment_118052720

So you’re saying the rights of the individual trump national security and the greater good of the general population?

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118052830#Comment_118052830

Protecting the rights of the individual is for the greater good of the general population.

Governments getting to do whatever they like unquestioned in the internet of "national security" has led to plenty of evil in the past

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053002#Comment_118053002

that sounds scarily like the stuff Anti Lockdown protestors were coming out with.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053270#Comment_118053270

No it doesn't cop on to yourself now. Any adult reading that without your agenda knows the vast difference

AllForIt

@Peregrinus

But, yeah, a lot of countries - the UK included - are party to a multilateral treaty, the Convention on Statelessness, under which they commit (among other things) not to strip someone of citizenship if that would leave them stateless

Why would anyone sign up to this is they don't know or are not allowed to interpret the laws on citizenship of the signatory states. Because if they can't how could they ever determine if one would become stateless or not if they have a reason to revoke citizenship. Just take Bangladesh's word for it?

@Aegir has provided evidence that she is a citizen of Bangladesh. You say that may not be the whole picture. Why don't Bangladesh simply provide the 'whole picture' and that would be the end of it. Surely they have an obligation to explain in detail otherwise it just looks like they don't want this terrorist.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053293#Comment_118053293

so first I'm a racist trump supporter, now I'm child with an agenda. What agenda pray tell?

Government all over europe more or less suspended our human rights. We were confined to our homes unless we had a good reason to go out, we were not allowed to see friends and family inside our homes and we were not allowed to not only leave the immediate area, but we were also prevented from leaving the country.

But this was ok, because it was in the interests of the greater good.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053548#Comment_118053548

Thats not even close to what we are talking about and very different to taking away someone's passport when you can't even prove they were terrorist.

Ya you do have an agenda and you are willing to tell lies like me calling you a "racist" which never happened.

You will be called an adult when you learn to have a conversation like one.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053416#Comment_118053416

As to why countries would sign up for this, stateless people are a nuisance to them. Syria might well wish to deport Begum; they can't, because she is stateless. And the more stateless people there are, the more problems like this you have. The UK is currently hyperventilating about a supposed flood of asylum-seekers; whatever problems a country has with asylum-seekers, those problems are magnified a hundred-fold with stateless asylum-seekers. Exhibit A: stateless Palestinian refugees, of whom there are a very large number.

So all countries have an interest in multilateral arrangements that reduce the number of stateless people.

As against that, it does limit their own capacity to make people stateless, but a lot of countries either genuinely take human rights at least somewhat seriously or at least want to be seen to do so, so preserving their freedom to render people stateless is not generally high on their agenda.

Joe_ Public

Saw this about our beloved Laura likely leaving her role as BBC political editor and immediately thought, ah finally off to join the happy throng in No.10, but no....on closer inspection, it seems she will be relocating to the R4 Today presenting team.

This is her here:

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1451237421711077381?s=20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118056005#Comment_118056005

Which is all very admirable, but as no one has been made stateless, completely off topic.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118060761#Comment_118060761

She's effectively stateless. The state of which she is a citizen by birth has revoked her citizenship, and the state to whose citizenship she may be entitled by descent refuses to afford her the protections and privileges of citizenship and, as you point out yourself, says it will deny her entry and that if she attempts to enter will abuse her human rights.

There is no country in the world that will afford her the rights and protections of citizenship. That's statelessness.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047691#Comment_118047691

You missed the bit after unless- https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=543d0d724

(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside

Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or

Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate

or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission

or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to

that country; or

(b) that person's 6 [ father or mother] is, at the time of the birth,

in the service of any Government in Bangladesh.

(a) applies as her birth was not registered at the time as was required. Citizenship was not automatic.

Also she is now over 21 so not entitled to dual citizenship which she never could have had because it wasn't applied for.

Look at the issue of citizenship for the Rohingya, it's not like Bangladesh is handing passports to anyone who needs one.

Regardless the main issue is the UK acting unilaterally which isn't going to win friends in the diplomatic circles needed for Empire 2.0

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118064900#Comment_118064900

Actually, you missed that this only applies if her percents are citizens by descent. They are citizens by birth

Sam Russell

UK National Minimum wage set to rise to £9.50. This compares with €10.50 here. £9.50 is €11.60 according to XE.COM. So expect a rush of locals to the picking fields.

Petrol is £1.43 per litre, with diesel at £1.46 per litre.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/petrol-price-rise-uk-drivers-b1944747.html

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118071066#Comment_118071066

Dont forgot that the minimum wage isn't that high for all adults. In a fine bit of what should be illegal discrimination 18 to 20 year olds only get £6.56 and 21/22 get £8.36

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's park the Shamima Begum thing now please. It's taken up pages of this thread. Thanks.

J Mysterio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118071169#Comment_118071169

That's shocking!

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118088319#Comment_118088319

Less pay for the same job. Not only is it disgusting for the under 22 year olds its also crap for 23/24 year olds and maybe further than that.

Take an industry like hospitality where a manager is on a very strict wage budget from above and barely has enough cash to adequately staff his pub. Suddenly come hiring time the 19 year old looks a much better prospect than the 24 year old

Tom Mann Centuria

Labour continue to do nothing in the polls. People saying Starmer was a shrewd operator with his policy of don't really challenge anything, just let the Tories fupp up and reap the rewards. Well it ain't happening, Tories continually shooting the British public and themselves in the face, day after day and their poll lead remains at least 5 points. And Starmer hasn't faced even 10% of the hostility from the press his predecessor did.

The claims that anyone else would be 20 points in front (when Corbyn led) have long since dried up. Starmer isn't attracting anyone back in the 'red wall' and losing thousands from the left and young people to the Greens and a.n.other. As well as putting a huge dent in their finances by losing membership and endangering Union contributions through his inaction.

In summary, as Britain sinks in their own sh*t, only slightly metaphorically speaking, so too do the Labour Party.

ancapailldorcha

I'm a bit bemused about the nothingburger that is the budget. For some bizarre reason, they've cut duty on short haul flights within the UK just before COP 26. There seems to be nothing bold or innovative about it at all.

Sam Russell

I think that is just what makes it bold and innovative - is that there is nothing bold and inovative at all. He had the opportunity to do something to mitigate the downsides of Brexit but chose to do nothing. He could have done a bit of levelling up - but chose to do nothing.

I presume he is keeping his powder dry so he can be ready for the next Brexit crisis.

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101609#Comment_118101609

A conservative mp on Question Time last week was actually arguing that the cut in passenger duty on domestic flights was all about levelling up, something about "connectivity" or some other blather. Nothing that made much sense to me anyway. Seemed more about Sunak throwing a bone to airline bosses to me, as he did for his banker pals by cutting their taxes.

As to the wider frame, i suspect Sunak has a vague plan to inflict fiscal pain on middle and lower income families now, at a time when labour are making no inroads, in the expectation or hope that, in 18-24 months time, he'll be in a position to start talking about doling out tax cuts and other goodies just in time for an election campaign.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118101791#Comment_118101791

I thought that this was what the truncated form of HS2 was for.

Sunak seems to be cut from the George Osborne mold, i.e. austerity for the masses and tax cuts for the wealthy. If they wanted to enhance connectivity, doing something about rail fares would be a better start.

Sam Russell

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/owen-paterson-and-an-egregious-breach-of-the-rules/

I see the Yorkshire Bylines are having a go at Owen Patterson, a fine upstanding Tory Eurosceptic for his antics with the Members Code of Conduct.

Worth a read. Spolier alert - he did wrong!

Seth Brundle

Doing the rounds today is this photo of the UK leader at a crucial climate change conference sitting beside 95 year old Sir David Attenborough, falling asleep and with no mask...

A Dub in Glasgo

He is a shambles

What sort of monster sits next to a national treasure and puts their life at risk by not wearing a mask?

The mirror has the full explanation as to why this photo didn’t make it beyond social media.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-sleeping-maskless-claims-25355118.amp

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118110786#Comment_118110786

Yeah. Do I believe a point in time image or what No 10 will obviously claim? Hmmmm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118110957#Comment_118110957

I expect you will believe whatever you want to believe. I was simply putting up a piece from the mirror that shows a point in time photo is not reliable. It just needs to support a narrative, which is all twitter needs. Actual journalists tend to want a little bit more substance which is why I would imagine the Mirror decided to run a more balanced version of events.

This is akin to the one taken a few years back when people got excited about Ronan O'Gara refusing to shake the Queen's and keeping them in his pocket, which is of course rubbish, but supported the belief of those that wanted to believe that Ronan was "Sticking it to the Queen".