#strongly believe that Starmer should do this

[rmsstevielol]

I just want to talk about Remembrance Day for a sec.

So as a Scottish and Irish person i wear the poppy and i wear it solely to respect the innocent (heavy on this, when I say this I mean only the innocent ones I don’t even associate the disgusting war criminals with the other soldiers) men and women who lost their lives in WW1, WW2 and other conflicts. I do this because any innocent person who dies in conflict deserves to be remembered and also because my dad is a veteran of 30 years. As a British soldier, he admits that their are few disgusting individuals who take advantage of their role as a soldier to commit horrific war crimes yet he says that they were taught in training that Remembrance Day is not for them, they’re not being remembered or honoured becuase they do not deserve it.

I wear the poppy for every single innocent person, no matter what race, religion, gender etc who has died in the world wars or any other recent conflict, including the Palestinian genocide that is happening as we speak. I strongly believe that if you’re supporting Israel or funding them, you don’t deserve to wear that poppy. You’re supposed to be respecting any innocent person who died in conflict and by funding or helping this genocide happen, you’re contradicting yourself. Heavy on any Westminster MP that showed up at the memorial service especially Kier Starmer.

Further, about the Irish and Scottish part. For those who are shitting on Stephen Flynn for not singing the national anthem: he is an atheist, he isn’t religious, he isn’t a unionist and isn’t his national anthem, he is purely there to remember the dead as he should be.. this is not another day to praise the government for no reason neither is it a day to praise the monarchy for no reason, this is about the dead soldier and that is it. AND the fact that you’re angry at a non-unionist for not singing the national anthem (that isn’t his) yet you’re not angry at the man who murdered hundreds of soldiers in the war he caused, Tony Blair for even attending the memorial, that is absolutely disgusting and hypocritical. Now about the Irish thing, I get it honestly I do I am Irish and I know what the British did and yes I am also incredibly angry about it, but thousands of Irishmen and women died in WW1 and other conflicts and that is what I am remembering, if you’re so proud about being Irish then remember the dead Irishmen who fought for you and be proud of them (ofc again I mean the innocent ones), again this is not about the government, monarchy or politics please understand that, if people say it is about British or any of the things I’ve just mentioned then they’re wrong, seriously it’s nothing about them it’s about the dead no matter who they were (again yk what I mean).

i personally went to a memorial service for Remembrance Day and I did the 2 minute silence yet I did not sing the anthem becuase im not English and that isn’t my anthem and again it has nothing to do with the monarchy, if you’re making it about them then I personally think you’re awful :)

thank you for listening to my rant and lest we forget 🤍

[head-post]

Londoners should be able to live and work in EU, Sadiq Khan says

Londoners should be able to live and work in European countries, Sadiq Khan says, urging the government to support a youth mobility programme with the European Union. The Mayor of London is hosting a meeting of heads of EU missions, including the EU ambassador and UK ambassadors to the 27 EU member states on Tuesday, The Independent reports.

Delivering opening remarks at the start of the meeting, which aims to further strengthen London’s relationship with its international partners, Sadiq is expected to say he is “strongly in favour” of such a scheme.

The European Commission has made the youth mobility scheme a key demand amid Keir Starmer’s post-Brexit reset with Brussels after years of strained relations under successive Conservative administrations.

The proposal, which has become a major stumbling block between the UK and the EU, is likely to mirror similar agreements the UK has already struck with countries including Australia and Japan, allowing 18-35-year-olds to move and work freely between countries for up to two years.

Despite growing calls for a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of such an agreement with the EU, saying there will be no return to freedom of movement.

However, Sadiq will argue that it would “help economic growth across Europe, as well as giving young Londoners and EU citizens important life experiences, such as the chance to work abroad and learn more about our languages and cultures.”

“As part of this, I’m keen for us to look at how we can make it easier for schoolchildren from the EU to visit the UK and learn more about our shared ties and history,” he will say.

Brexit was a mistake, Sadiq Khan says

The mayor is expected to use Tuesday’s meeting to reiterate his view that Brexit “was a mistake that continues to have a negative impact not only on my city and country, but on the European community as a whole.”

Starmer pledged to forge new ties with Europe as part of his Brexit reset plan, signing a new defence cooperation agreement with Germany in October aimed at boosting security, investment and jobs in both countries.

In October, the government also signed a defence roadmap with Estonia and agreed to cooperate on missile defence. Sadiq will back Keir’s plan to reset relations, saying he “wholeheartedly supports” the mission. He will say:

“I remain passionate about growing and improving our relationship across every area possible, and I believe this is essential if we’re to effectively tackle a host of shared challenges, relating to trade, our economies, security, the environment and the rise of an intolerant and anti-democratic populism. Indeed, at a moment when we see trade wars and tariffs posing a real threat to international affairs, I’m convinced that we should be looking at what more we can do to strengthen our relationship as a counterweight to these trends.”

The Prime Minister clashed with Donald Trump over the future of Ukraine and the US President’s latest threat to impose tariffs on the UK, with the Government urged to forge closer trade ties with Europe to counter the threat.

Last week, the US president announced he would impose “retaliatory tariffs” on all other countries by charging them the same amount as US exports, saying such a move would be “fair for everyone.”

The policy published by the White House included VAT as a target, which analysts believe could cut UK GDP by around £24bn over the next two years. A government spokesperson said:

“We are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU to improve the British people’s security, safety and prosperity. But we have been clear there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.”

Read more HERE

[wild-at-mind]

If you want to know how seriously I am affected by the idea of 'contamination' of good leftists by the prospect of listening to people who disagree with you on some things, or even just having in your life people who kind of suck in some ways, here is an anecdote. So I've been trying to get involved with the local socialist group again after I dropped out after a similar attempt last year, the reason I dropped out being that I could feel the purity element creeping in. A lot of discussion turned into 'Tories are like this and have these characteristcs and also are all evil'....this coming a couple of years after a general election where a number of stalwart Labour voting constituencies went Tory for the first time, for a variety of complex reasons. And yet this seemed to have not permeated the discourse at all. Should it not have??? Personally I think it absolutely should have and I want to be around people who can talk about things in more detail than 'Tories bad, the end!' I'm glad some people find this cathartic but I don't. So I left.

I started attending meetings again this September and things seemed to be going well. We are in a different place in this country and now everyone is predicting strongly that the government will change at the next general election. No one thought much of Keir Starmer but in a constructive way, there wasn't any 'electoral politics is the greatest evil and we must all completely disengage, shun any who still believe in it and possibly become conspiracy theories' type stuff. That's not really the socialists whose meetings I was attending's vibe anyway- their ultimate aim is to put Socialist Party members into government positions but they recognise this is a long way off goal. They focus on talking to people and seeing where they are coming from, rather than talking at them and condemning them, which I agree is kind of the only way to bring enough people around to a cause like this. Once of my favourite leftist bloggers on here who sadly left ages ago once said 'leftism is supposed to be about meeting people where they are'. In one of the discussions at the socialist meetings one member who does a lot of engagement with the public said (paraphrasing): 'you have to approach people humbly, accepting that you don't know everything and open to their point of view even if you disagree'. The message I got was that not everyone can or will value your cause, especially in a very Conservative-voting town like mine, but trying to emphasise your solidarity with people however you can is better than writing everyone off as shitty Tories who could never change (and then having a conspiracy spiral). I was finding the meetings a positive experience but the last meeting wasn't so good and I haven't been back since. There was a speaker who kind of did the thing my dad does where you just monologue about how terrible the world is from a leftist perspective. Just when I thought we were focusing more on solidarity despite difference and looking for the positives socialism can bring in a practical manner. I felt really bad for this one meeting attendee who was attending for the first time. This guy asked the speaker a question and the speaker just took off going on about the same stuff for another 10 minutes. He didn't answer the question at all. It was annoying and also I couldn't help but think the guy who asked the question wouldn't feel encouraged to come again, you know?

Then also one attendee who I vaguely knew from last year revealed that she had been trying to find support gigs for her band but had cancelled one because the person they had been going to support was 'a bad person'. At first I thought maybe this meant they had fascist views or something (gig from a different band got cancelled in one of the live music venues here for that reason and the venue had to apologise profusely for not doing due diligence, as they should). But the attendee didnt elaborate in any way and I realised oh maybe this person is just kind of shitty....like really you would cancel a gig for that? I'm not being like 'haha good luck trying to be in the music industry and living by that principle', I'm objecting to the idea that you yourself are implicated if you play support for a shitty person. That's not an idea I want any part in and while it sounds like a small thing, I deliberately avoid being around people who think like this because it rubs off on me very easily and I spent years unlearning that shit.

I haven't been back for a month, there's a meeting tonight but I'm not going because I don't want to hear rants about the war from these people. At their best they can be great but at their worst they just rant and browbeat at people who they know already agree with what they are saying like my fucking dad. What is to be gained from this??? And I'm thinking I might give some feedback to the organiser on the problems I'm having with this but how on earth could I possibly explain?? :(

[beardedmrbean]

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said he will quit if given a fine by Durham police for breaking lockdown rules.

But speaking to reporters, the Labour leader insisted he was "absolutely clear that no rules were broken".

Angela Rayner also confirmed she would step down if issued with a fine.

Sir Keir has been under pressure after police announced a probe into an event in April 2021, when he had curry and beer at an MP's office during an election campaign visit.

Conservatives had accused Sir Keir of "rank double standards" as the opposition leader had previously called for Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak to resign over attending Downing Street lockdown events.

What Starmer said about PM's Covid rule-breaking

Starmer investigated over alleged lockdown breach

Keir Starmer's Durham drink - what were the rules?

Sir Keir said his accusers were "just trying to feed cynicism" about politicians.

Deputy Labour leader Ms Rayner said in her statement that she would "do the decent thing and step down" if she was issued with a fixed penalty notice.

Durham police launched their inquiry on Friday after the local elections, having previously said they did not believe an offence had been committed.

It's thought the police investigation could last up to eight weeks.

This is a massive gamble from Sir Keir Starmer - but one where circumstance, in his judgement, made the alternative worse.

Say nothing and be politically crippled for up to two months, while the police decide what to do.

A former director of public prosecutions, steeped in the law, who called for the prime minister and chancellor to resign for breaking the rules, unwilling to confirm what he'd do if the same thing happens.

Instead Sir Keir has said if he's fined he'll resign.

This means he can reclaim - at least some - moral high ground and say the moral bar he set for others is the one he'll hold himself to.

It places a colossal responsibility on the shoulders of Durham police: their decision could finish the political career of a man who hopes to the next prime minister.

It means in the short term Keir Starmer has some political room for manoeuvre.

In the long term, if he avoids a fine, it could help define him - and his character - in the public's mind.

If he doesn't, it's curtains for him, and a Labour leadership race will beckon.

Addressing the issue on Monday, Sir Keir said he had "always followed the rules" and outlined how Covid rules had prevented him from offering support to his father-in-law when his wife's mother died.

"Barely a day has passed when we haven't agonised over that decision," he said.

He reiterated his insistence that he had not broken the rules and suggested his opponents "didn't believe it themselves" but were simply trying "to get the public to believe all politicians are the same".

"I'm here to say they are not - I believe in honour, integrity and the principle that those who make the laws should follow them," he added.

"If the police decide to issue me with a fixed-penalty notice, I would of course do the right thing and step down."

Asked what he would do if he were found to have breached the regulations, but not fined, Sir Keir replied: "The penalty for a Covid breach is a fixed penalty notice - I've set out what the position is for that."

Labour sources told the BBC's political editor Chris Mason, that the party leader sought advice from senior figures within the party before making his statement - there were strongly-held differences of opinion about what he should do, but he decided go with what was his own initial instinct.

His supporters hope, if he's not fined, this will help define Sir Keir in the public's mind, and, as one put it, be a "clear dividing line" with the prime minister.

"He could come to personify what the British people like - decency and fairness," one said, adding, "if he falls he does for Boris as well".

The event under investigation took place at the constituency office of City of Durham Labour MP Mary Foy during campaigning ahead of the Hartlepool by-election, where Sir Keir drank beer and ate curry, while lockdown restrictions were in place.

A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Keir was working. A takeaway was made available in the kitchen, and he ate between work demands. No rules were broken."

And Ms Foy dismissed allegations that some people who had been in her office were drunk as "untrue", adding: "I do not believe either I or my office staff broke any [Covid] rules."

Responding to Sir Keir's statement, Environment Minister Rebecca Pow said it was "a matter for Sir Keir".

"Let's wait for the investigation to proceed to see what else might come out," she added.

[baoanhwin]

An opportunity for Sir Keir to set the agenda

“Grades will instead be issued according to Ofqual’s statistical model, relying on a school’s recent exam history.” The computer ensures your future determined by the school you went to, and there is nothing you can do about it. https://t.co/pvk1cvGdNJ

— Charlie Falconer (@LordCFalconer) August 8, 2020

Like David Herdson I do agree Sir Keir Starmer isn’t setting the agenda but the next week certainly presents him with an opportunity to do so. The Guardian reports that

Nearly 40% of A-level grades submitted by teachers are set to be downgraded when exam results in England are published next week, the Guardian has learned, as criticism intensifies of this year’s makeshift results.

Analysis of the algorithm and data used by the exam regulator Ofqual to distribute grades after the cancellation of exams amid the coronavirus pandemic found that a net 39% of assessments of A-level grades by teachers are likely to be adjusted down before students receive their results.

That would mean nearly 300,000 A-levels issued are lower than the teacher assessment of the more than 730,000 A-level entries in England this summer.

Including GCSEs, which are expected to have a similar downgrade rate, close to a net 2m teacher assessments will be adjusted downwards and in many cases ignored completely.

There was uproar in Scotland this week when the exams authority rejected nearly 124,000 grade recommendations from teachers – a quarter of the total – but unlike in Scotland, English pupils are barred from appealing against their results on academic grounds.

Grades will instead be issued according to Ofqual’s statistical model, relying on a school’s recent exam history and each pupil’s previous exam results, to replace the exams scrapped by the government after schools were closed because of the coronavirus lockdown.

Those most at risk of receiving revised grades appear to be students on the border between B and C grades, and between C and D grades, and pupils at comprehensive schools with wide variations in attainment or patchy outcomes in courses over the three previous years of data that Ofqual is using to cap individual school results.

Teachers will still have a significant influence on how grades are distributed in each school, having compiled the rankings that will determine which pupils receive the final grades allocated by Ofqual for their course.

Headteachers and exam officials in England say they fear a storm of controversy even worse than that which has engulfed Scotland, where a quarter of teacher predictions were adjusted by the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

Experts say that as Ofqual has barred individual pupils from appealing against their grades on academic grounds, families should not waste time complaining but instead contact college or university admissions offices to confirm their places in the event of unexpectedly poor grades.

Tim Oates, group director of research and development at the exam board Cambridge Assessment, said: “Grades have been awarded this year by combining lots of data, including the rank order and the grades submitted by teachers. We have seen from Scotland’s press coverage that it’s all too easy to fixate on the difference between the teacher-assessed grades and the final grades. But it’s a misleading distraction and misinforms the public. The teacher grades were an important part of the process but always only going to be a part.

“On results day, energy should be channelled into how each young person can progress swiftly with what they have been awarded, rather than time lost on agonising over an apparently controversial but fundamentally misleading difference between teacher grades and final grades.”

Statisticians have criticised Ofqual’s algorithm, saying it does not have sufficient data to award grades fairly to most state schools in England, because of wide variations in results within schools and between years.

The Royal Statistical Society has called for an urgent review of the statistical procedures used in England and Scotland, to be carried out by the UK Statistics Authority. “This should consider both the substantive issues of the data used and the adjustment algorithms of the various nations, but also whether greater transparency would have been possible and beneficial,” the society said.

Huy Duong, the parent of an A-level candidate and a former medical statistician, said he has analysed Ofqual’s published data and comments to calculate that 39% of grades between A* and D will be lower than the teacher assessments. Duong’s findings were privately confirmed to the Guardian by exam officials.

As Lord Falconer in his tweet above this has the potential to become very bad for Boris Johnson. We saw in Scotland where a similar thing happened the media will be full of real life examples of working class children in England who have been penalised by this.

Sir Keir should be able to dominate the agenda and possibly frame it as an us versus them issue, it is something the old Etonian Boris Johnson may be vulnerable on. Given the demographics of the country I have a very strong hunch that this may end up disproportionately impacting children in the ‘Red Wall’ seats.

I strongly and passionately believe that a good eduction sets you up for life so not only is it the right thing to do politically it is also the right thing morally for Sir Keir to raise. It might even help improve in the position in Scotland as the today’s front pages in Scotland show it is an issue that hasn’t gone away.

SCOTTISH MAIL ON SUNDAY: children now face a second exams disaster #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/PoCcX96RA2

— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) August 8, 2020

But back to other parts of Britain, with the Education Secretary being the professional Frank Spencer impersonator Gavin Williamson so if Sir Keir Starmer cannot set the agenda and cause the government difficulties on this issue then I expect Starmer will ultimately prove to be an unsuccessful Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

TSE

from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/09/an-opportunity-for-sir-keir-to-set-the-agenda/ https://dangky.ric.win/

[opedguy]

Johnson Edges Closer to Brexit Deal

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Oct. 20, 2019.--Dealt a string of setbacks by the British Parliament, 55-year-old Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks to complete this Brexit deal Monday, Oct. 21, 10 days before the deadline with the European Union [EU].  Johnson tried but failed to push through a no-deal Brexit, only to watch his plan foiled in the House of Commons. Johnson thought he could get a prorogation deal from Queen Elizabeth Aug. 30, keeping Parliament out his plans for a no-deal Brexit. Parliament returned to session after Britain’s high court ruled Johnson’s attempt to keep parliament recessed was illegal.  Parliament returned Sept. 24, passing a bill making a no-deal Brexit illegal. Johnson was forced, like his predecessor former Prime Minister Theresa May, to get an orderly deal from the EU. British Foreign Secretary Domiique Raab said today that he believed Johnson had enough votes in Parliament to pass his Brexit deal.

            Johnson wants to complete Brexit by Oct. 31, the agreed upon deadline with the EU to complete its severance from the U.K. It’s been over three years when a referendum to leave the EU passed 52% to 48% June 23, 2016.  May couldn’t get an acceptable deal with Parliament, forcing her to resign May 24.  Raab confirmed that the EU was not inclined to grant the U.K. another extension, believing they’ve given the best Brexit deal possible.  Yet Parliament forced Johnson Oct. 19 to ask the EU for another extension, something Brussels and Downing Street oppose.  Despite the move to seek another extension, Raab thinks Johnson has enough votes in Parliament to compete Brexit by Oct. 31.  “He’s got that deal.  We seem to have the number in the House of Commons.  Why hasn’t Parliament pushed this through?  That is what we are going to do next week,” Raab told the BBC.

            Echoing Raab’s belief about a Brexit deal, Conservative Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Grove thinks Johnson now has the votes in Parliament, despite sending a letter to the EU requesting another delay.  Johnson reluctantly submitted the letter, knowing that he and EU want no more delays. Only Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn wants a new referendum vote, reversing any attempt to complete Brexit. “We are going to leave by Oct. 31, we have the means and the ability to do so,” Grove told Sky News today. Parliament has been most concerned about the so-called “backstop,” that would prevent the Northern Ireland border from hardening, continuing the free market between the U.K. and Irish Republic. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a key member of the EU Brexit negotiations, is committed to keeping the Northern Ireland border open.

              With the main sticking point to a Brexit deal all but resolved, Grove believes it’s possible to complete the deal by Oct. 31.  “That letter was sent because Parliament required it to be sent . . . but Parliament can’t change the prime minister’s mind, Parliament can’t change the government’s policy or determination,” Grove said.  Labour still wants a new referendum on the new deal. “Whatever deal gets through, it should be subject to a referendum,” said Keir Starmer, Labour Party spokesman. British legislator Oliver Letwin, whose recent amendment required Johnson to seek a delay, said he believed there were enough votes in the House of Commons to complete Brexit by Oct. 31. “I am absolutely behind the government now as long as they continue with this bill, continue with the deal, I will support it, I will vote for it,” Letwin told BBC.  Letwin strongly opposed a no-deal Brexit.

            Now that Johnson has a tangible deal, Letwin and other members of Parliament opposed to a “no-deal” Brexit now lean toward supporting Johnson’s Brexit deal.  Letwin was kicked out the Tory Party after insisting that Johnson get a Brexit deal before getting out of the EU.  “I think we probably will,” Letwin said about getting enough votes in Parliament to pass Brexit this week.  Starmer said he would put more amendments on the deal, preventing the so-called “trap-door,” preventing the U.K. from a no-deal Brexit during the transition period in Dec. 2020.  Getting closer to a deal, Corbyn’s Labour Party would like to impose a new Brexit referendum but doesn’t have the votes in Parliament to oppose the current deal. Brussels also doesn’t want further deal because they have nothing more to offer, including on the pivotal Northern Ireland border, something they say has been worked out.

            EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michael Barnier said he was meeting with EU ambassadors on completing the Brexit deal.  Barnier confirmed that EU Council President Donald Tusk would be meeting with EU leaders soon on the latest request for a Brexit extension.  Neither Johnson nor the EU wants to kick the Brexit deal down the road any longer. With the Northern Ireland border issues mostly resolved, there’s no reason to delay the vote any further. Corbyn would like a new referendum but that ship has sailed, pushing Johnson and the House of Commons to find common ground to pass a deal by Oct. 31.  EU officials have spent too much time-and-money on working out a suitable Brexit deal.  Letting Northern Ireland stay in the Custom’s Union allows the border to remain open for the indefinite future.  Barnier expects “a very short and normal meetings,” with the EU to complete the deal.

About the Author    

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[viralhottopics]

Government vows to overturn EU citizens vote after Lords defeat

Peers decide by 102 majority in favour of amendment demanding proposals to protect EU nationals in UK after Brexit

Theresa Mays government has vowed to overturn a demand by the House of Lords to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the UK within three months of article 50 being triggered.

Ministers were said to disappointed by a heavy defeat in which peers voted 358 to 256 in favour of amending the Brexit bill, but made clear that their position would not change on the issue.

Seven Conservatives including the former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg lined up with the Labour party, Liberal Democrats and crossbenchers to demand formal reassurances for more than 3 million Europeans already resident in Britain.

There will now be intense pressure on Conservative backbench MPs to follow suit when the bill returns to the Commons for another vote in just under a fortnight.

A government source told the Guardian that they took the issue of securing the rights of EU citizens very seriously, but said they were determined to pass a straightforward, simple bill.

The intention is to seek to overturn this in the House of Commons, the source said.

The Lords did not go as far as calling for immediate, unilateral action but said ministers should be made to set out proposals about how they would protect citizens and their families within three months of article 50 being triggered, which is due to happen later this month.

Their decision forces the governments Brexit bill into a process of ping-pong between the Houses of Commons and Lords, delaying its passage into law by at least one week, until 14 March.

Lobbying of Conservative MPs is already under way, with cross-party talks likely as Labour and the Lib Dems urge Conservative colleagues to push for a second defeat on the issue.

Campaigners will point to the fact that significant Cabinet members including Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove have all suggested that EU citizens should have their rights protected.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said there was a growing consensus over the issue. The prime minister is now increasingly isolated. Labour will continue to support this simple but effective amendment when it returns to the Commons, and urge MPs on all sides of the House to do so.

But possible Conservative backbenchers who might be minded to rebel told the Guardian that they did not believe the amendment would remain in place.

Anna Soubry said that she was convinced by the governments argument that this issue would be dealt with as a priority once article 50 had been triggered.

The governments Brexit minister, Lord Bridges, used the debate to tell peers that the government had been encouraged by meetings with other EU leaders who suggested that we will indeed be able to reach a quick and timely agreement.

But the governments suggestion that a one-sided guarantee could be damaging for the rights of British people living in Europe was given short-shrift by a number of peers.

Labours Brexit spokeswoman in the Lords, Lady Hayter, opened up the debate, claiming the government had the power to act now over the issue: In 1985, my noble friend Lord Kinnock had to say to his own party: You cant play politics with peoples jobs.

I now want to say to the government: you cant do negotiations with peoples futures.

She was backed by a number of high-profile peers including the previous Lib Dem leader, Lord Campbell and the former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf.

The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake said the governments argument that an offer to EU citizens would weaken its hand in European negotiations was questionable. However you think about that argument it is using them as bargaining chips.

Lord Hailsham (Douglas Hogg) was the most high profile Conservative to back the amendment, laid down by the Labour front bench but formally backed by Tories, Lib Dems and cross-benchers.

He said denying European citizens the right to remain in Britain could face legal challenge, but also said it was a matter of principle.

He described how a French waitress in parliament had asked him what would happen to her when Brexit took place. I gave her my personal opinion, which was that there would be no problem for her, but I was not able to give her the guarantee that I think she was entitled to deserve.

The peer reminded the House of Lords about the shock in Britain when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda.

But while there was some unexpected backing for the amendment, there was also some unlikely support for the government on the issue.

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, said that he was one of the people who had left Uganda under Amin because of his opposition to policy, so I know how minorities can feel.

But he insisted this was a simple bill only concerned with enabling May to trigger article 50, and compared it to the start of a race.

On your marks, get set, bang, he said. Then they take off and it will take two years to run this race and during the running of the race we want to make sure concerns come back.

Other supporters of the government included the former Tory leader Lord Howard, who argued that the best option to end the uncertainty was to pass this bill as quickly as possible and to activate article 50 as quickly as possible.

The former chancellor, Lord Lawson, said the amendment itself could stir up fear and concern among residents in this country that they may be able to stay when there is no question that there will be

But the prime minister, who does not have a majority in the Lords, was easily beaten despite a last-minute effort by Amber Rudd to reassure peers about the governments intentions on the issue.

She had insisted there was no question of treating European citizens with anything other than the utmost respect, and said their status would be top priority in EU negotiations.

The decision of peers to force a vote at committee stage was unusual, but took place when it became clear the government would not make concessions on this issue.

Nicolas Hatton, the chairman of the3million campaign group which has been lobbying for the rights of EU citizens said that while he had some concerns about the amendment it was a relief that for the first time since the referendum, a majority was secured in parliament to support the rights of the 3 million EU citizens who came in good faith to live and work the UK.

A coalition of 13 groups representing British nationals abroad and EU citizens in the UK agreed that it was a positive step in the right direction.

The coalition said it was concerned that the amendment makes no mention of UK citizens in the EEA despite the efforts of the grass roots groups across Europe to get their message across.

The group represents more than 25,000 UK citizens in the EU including British nationals in Spain, France and Germany.

They are also facing huge uncertainty about their futures, livelihoods and the security of their families the same concerns facing EU and EEA citizens in the UK, whose campaign for a unilateral guarantee we fully support, said Jeremy Morgan, QC for the coalition of residents.

Monique Hawkins, a Dutch woman who highlighted the plight of EU citizens when she revealed last December she had been asked to prepare to leave the country after 24 years, said she was heartened to hear so many moving and inspiring speeches.

However, she added that she feared the successful amendment still did not cover stay-at-home parents, carers, disabled people and students whose residence status was uncertain because they decided to continue their lives in Britain but did not take out health insurance when they arrived in the country.

MPs who support Brexit will join ministers in arguing strongly that the governments position should not cause concern among EU citizens in Britain. In fact, they point the finger instead at European countries, including Germany, which have refused to discuss any Brexit-related issues ahead of article 50 being triggered.

Steve Baker, a key figure on the Conservative backbenches who chairs the partys European Research Group, said: While our prime minister has been quite clear that we wish to resolve the issue of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK as soon as possible, it is regrettable that Germany and France are using UK citizens in their countries as bargaining chips for the Brexit negotiations.

A spokesperson for the Department for Exiting the European Union said: Our position on EU nationals has repeatedly been made clear. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals living in other member states, as early as we can.

Read more: http://bit.ly/2linT9r

from Government vows to overturn EU citizens vote after Lords defeat

[geordienorman]

Brexit: Labour rebellion on Article 50 grows

By: Sky News

Jeremy Corbyn is facing a growing rebellion against his stance on triggering the start of the Brexit process.

Party whip Jeff Smith has said he will defy Mr Corbyn’s orders and vote against triggering Article 50, the formal mechanism for leaving the European Union.

The Labour leader has decided to impose a three-line whip on next week’s vote in Parliament on whether Prime Minister Theresa May should be given the go-ahead to start the two-year negotiating period with Brussels.

“My constituents voted strongly for remain and I think it’s important to represent their view,” Mr Smith told the Manchester Evening News.

Video: A very European divorce: The story so far

:: What does the Brexit trigger bill say?

“I am not convinced that the Government has a proper plan for negotiating a deal in the UK’s best interest, and I also think any deal should go back to the country.”

Another party whip, Thangam Debbonaire, has said she was considering doing the same, but stressed she was still in talks with shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.

“I don’t believe in breaking the whip,” she told the Bristol Post.

“It will be a tough decision. But, at the moment, I’m minded to vote against.”

Video: Labour MP resigns over Corbyn’s Article 50 vote order

Shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner, whose constituency in Cambridge voted for Remain in June’s referendum, has said it was a “very straight forward” decision to vote against Article 50.

“It’s my strongly held personal position, and I represent three-quarters of the people of Cambridge,” he told the Cambridge News.

“I’ve had perfectly civilised conversations (with the Labour leadership).

Video: Corbyn: ‘It is clearly a three-line whip’ on Article 50

“They know my position and they understand exactly why I’m doing what I’m doing and it’s for them to decide what to do next.”

It comes after Tulip Siddiq resigned as a shadow education minister, saying she would be better able to fight against a “hard Brexit” from the backbenches.

Mr Corbyn faces a split within his party over the European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill, which was published by the Government on Thursday.

Around 60 Labour MPs – mostly representing constituencies that voted to remain in the EU – are understood to be threatening to vote against invoking Article 50.

Video: Clive Lewis: Not to debate Article 50 would be ‘silly’

A number of frontbench MPs are thought to have threatened to resign, saying they will step down so they can properly represent constituents who voted to stay.

The three-line whip order came after the Government set out a tight timetable, forcing the bill through the House of Commons within three weeks and giving MPs just three days to debate the issue.

The vote is scheduled to take place on 8 February.

Labour MPs have accused the Government of attempting to “muzzle” the House of Commons by rushing the bill through in less than two weeks.

The post Brexit: Labour rebellion on Article 50 grows appeared first on GNL.

via: http://bit.ly/2jY1BpN Geordie Norman Media 2013 ©