politicscouk--2020-04-16--Lock-down: Making the most of this time

Lock-down: Making the most of this time

Scarcity is something I thought I understood as an economic concept , but the lived experience of it , when I became homeless and destitute a few years back , was formative .
The shortages and economic hardship which come with this pandemic , sweeping across the globe , awaken in me the same insecurity .
Only this time feels different , because someone else 's life depends on me .
I have been on my home-island of Mykonos , Greece , since January , for my regular shift looking after Mum .
She is in the advanced stages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my two sisters .
We take turns being her primary carer .
When covid-19 arrived on our continent , it was clear to me , quite early on , that I would not be returning to the UK for a while .
As it stands , all flights off the island have been cancelled until May .
I dare not risk trying to make my way to London via somewhere , lest I get stuck in that somewhere .
Then I would be no good to anyone .
So here I am for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depends on me entirely , through a pandemic .
Trying to shield her from the virus by isolating myself .
Worrying about my other half and friends in London .
What a time to be apart from loved ones .
But that is the condition of the migrant : fractured between two homes , always missing someone , every 'hello ' being a simultaneous 'goodbye ' .
Now it 's amplified to the maximum .
I tried my best to avoid moralising about panic buying in the early stages of this crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared is imperceptible to me .
I am entirely responsible for another person - yet one more concept I had n't fully understood as a lived experience , until I became a carer for my mother , as I do n't have children .
It 's easy to skate the line of risk on your own - much harder when someone else 's life is in your hands .
How do you define 'hoarding ' when you have small children at home ?
Were those stocking up on supplies all selfish oafs or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most basic and urgent biological drive to keep them safe ?
In any case , the clue is in the name .
Panic is not a rational reaction .
There is no advice more useless than 'stop panicking ' .
Panic implies by definition an overriding of reason .
And it is fostered by a lack of clear information and guidance .
A legitimate fear caused me to increase my shopping , especially things with a long shelf life , about two months ago .
Nothing outrageous , I would just buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the things I use regularly .
I also reduced waste .
Imperceptibly , at some point , I started to count how many portions of things I had left .
I find myself well stocked now , without having caused anyone else severe difficulties .
In Greece things appear calmer and state action more robust than in Britain .
Even though we are behind the UK curve , everything has been on lockdown for weeks .
A real lockdown .
Not a stay-at-home-unless-you-go-to work lockdown .
Only supermarkets , bakeries , butchers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services remain open , with strict limits on how many people can enter at one time , based on square meterage .
In my little corner of Greece , unfortunately , things are even tougher .
Some asymptomatic priest decided to do secret Eucharist services and infected a cluster of his 'flock ' .
So Mykonos is now under stricter lockdown .
There is a strict curfew between 8pm and 8am and the list of reasons to go out is even stricter .
It only takes one idiot .
And every village has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to the supermarket for fresh produce - my only moment out in two weeks .
I was there when it opened and shopped pretty much alone , because , even in a pandemic , Greeks can not face the supermarket first thing in the morning .
As I was leaving , I saw a very good friend of the family in the parking lot .
I apologised from a few metres away for not greeting him and explained I was trying to isolate as much as possible , for Mum ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she goes , considering her condition , '' he replied .
That sentence winded me like a punch to the solar plexus .
The fact it was kindly meant made it worse .
Mum is comfortable and happy .
She is in no pain and has a great quality of life .
Pardon my French , but where the merde do you get off , telling someone a person they love would be better off dead , just because they make you feel uncomfortable ?
I held my tongue , and only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep her healthy as long as I can , if it 's all the same to you '' and went on my way , with my provisions .
The only real , merciless scarcity all of us must face is the scarcity of time .
Our own and others ' .
I am thankful for every moment I get to spend with my mother .
I am privileged to be able to pay back a smidgeon of the love she showed me throughout my life .
I am blessed for being able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me in the kitchen , to sustain her through this crisis .
Ancient Greeks considered good food an antidote to death .
Not only in a vague , philosophical sense , but in a real , practical way .
It 's her and me now - isolated , but prepared .
Chopping , cooking , scrimping , foraging , improvising .
Gazing out at the vast blue sea and the disaster unfolding beyond it , rationing our antidote to death , one meal at a time .
Alex Andreou is a writer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greece .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Alex Andreou
Scarcity is something I thought I understood as an economic concept, but the lived experience of it, when I became homeless and destitute a few years back, was formative. The shortages and economic hardship which come with this pandemic, sweeping across the globe, awaken in me the same insecurity.
Only this time feels different, because someone else's life depends on me.
I have been on my home-island of Mykonos, Greece, since January, for my regular shift looking after Mum. She is in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. I share duties with my two sisters. We take turns being her primary carer.
When covid-19 arrived on our continent, it was clear to me, quite early on, that I would not be returning to the UK for a while. As it stands, all flights off the island have been cancelled until May. I dare not risk trying to make my way to London via somewhere, lest I get stuck in that somewhere. Then I would be no good to anyone.
So here I am for the foreseeable, caring for someone who depends on me entirely, through a pandemic. Trying to shield her from the virus by isolating myself. Worrying about my other half and friends in London. What a time to be apart from loved ones. But that is the condition of the migrant: fractured between two homes, always missing someone, every 'hello' being a simultaneous 'goodbye'. Now it's amplified to the maximum.
I tried my best to avoid moralising about panic buying in the early stages of this crisis. The line between it and simply being prepared is imperceptible to me. I am entirely responsible for another person – yet one more concept I hadn't fully understood as a lived experience, until I became a carer for my mother, as I don't have children. It's easy to skate the line of risk on your own – much harder when someone else's life is in your hands. How do you define 'hoarding' when you have small children at home?
Were those stocking up on supplies all selfish oafs or were they people with dependants, following the most basic and urgent biological drive to keep them safe? In any case, the clue is in the name. Panic is not a rational reaction. There is no advice more useless than 'stop panicking'.
Panic implies by definition an overriding of reason. And it is fostered by a lack of clear information and guidance. A legitimate fear caused me to increase my shopping, especially things with a long shelf life, about two months ago. Nothing outrageous, I would just buy roughly ten to 20% extra of the things I use regularly. I also reduced waste. Imperceptibly, at some point, I started to count how many portions of things I had left. I find myself well stocked now, without having caused anyone else severe difficulties.
In Greece things appear calmer and state action more robust than in Britain. Even though we are behind the UK curve, everything has been on lockdown for weeks. A real lockdown. Not a stay-at-home-unless-you-go-to work lockdown. Only supermarkets, bakeries, butchers, greengrocers, pharmacies and a few vital services remain open, with strict limits on how many people can enter at one time, based on square meterage.
In my little corner of Greece, unfortunately, things are even tougher. Some asymptomatic priest decided to do secret Eucharist services and infected a cluster of his 'flock'. So Mykonos is now under stricter lockdown. There is a strict curfew between 8pm and 8am and the list of reasons to go out is even stricter. It only takes one idiot. And every village has one.
The other day, I went to the supermarket for fresh produce – my only moment out in two weeks. I was there when it opened and shopped pretty much alone, because, even in a pandemic, Greeks cannot face the supermarket first thing in the morning.
As I was leaving, I saw a very good friend of the family in the parking lot. I apologised from a few metres away for not greeting him and explained I was trying to isolate as much as possible, for Mum’s sake. "Maybe it's better if she goes, considering her condition," he replied.
That sentence winded me like a punch to the solar plexus. The fact it was kindly meant made it worse. Mum is comfortable and happy. She is in no pain and has a great quality of life. Pardon my French, but where the merde do you get off, telling someone a person they love would be better off dead, just because they make you feel uncomfortable?
I held my tongue, and only said "well, I plan to keep her healthy as long as I can, if it's all the same to you" and went on my way, with my provisions.
The only real, merciless scarcity all of us must face is the scarcity of time. Our own and others'. I am thankful for every moment I get to spend with my mother. I am privileged to be able to pay back a smidgeon of the love she showed me throughout my life. I am blessed for being able to exercise the skill and thriftiness she taught me in the kitchen, to sustain her through this crisis.
Ancient Greeks considered good food an antidote to death. Not only in a vague, philosophical sense, but in a real, practical way. It's her and me now – isolated, but prepared. Chopping, cooking, scrimping, foraging, improvising. Gazing out at the vast blue sea and the disaster unfolding beyond it, rationing our antidote to death, one meal at a time.
Alex Andreou is a writer, actor and cook living in London and Greece. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-08--Iran: West needs to prepare for cyber attack strategy

Last week 's killing of Iran 's top military commander , Qasem Soleimani , served to considerably escalate already simmering tensions between the Islamic republic and the US and its allies .
The extraordinary and unforeseen move by Washington is not only certain to further destabilise the Middle East .
It has also left US allies - including the UK - in the lurch , with little recourse but to brace for a retaliation , which Iran 's supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , has promised would be `` severe '' , `` harsh '' , and `` forceful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike against Western airbases in Iraq may not be the end of the matter .
In retaliation for Washington 's actions , Iran will certainly look to physically target American interests across the Middle East region .
And while direct retaliation against various US allies is not likely in this case , UK forces in the region could inevitably get involved and be directly affected .
Additionally , as is typical in such asymmetrical conflicts , Iran will in all probability also engage in alternative means of striking back , namely in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Western interests online .
Indeed , Iran has a history of engaging in aggressive cyberattacks and has demonstrated a formidable and unyielding capacity to launch cyber campaigns against its adversaries .
Iranian hackers have in recent years been accused of targeting the computer networks of several major banks in the US , infiltrating the control system of a dam near New York City , completely wiping the servers of the state-owned oil company in Saudi Arabia , incapacitating Turkey 's electricity grid , breaching UK parliamentary accounts , and crippling a Las @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indication , a determined and inexorable cyber response from Iran is what the US and its Western allies should brace for .
That said , sophisticated cyberattacks on critical infrastructure networks like power grids and water systems , although not out of the question , are rather unlikely at this time .
Not only are these systems highly secure and resilient , but uncertainties also remain regarding how aggressively Iran will be willing to push this in the face of a potentially substantial US response .
The more probable scenario would likely consist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as a denial of service attacks or wiper malware attacks .
Such attacks will be more than just a nuisance , with potentially significant implications .
We would expect them to cause costly damage to the global financial sector as well as a whole spectrum of private Western businesses and government entities .
Wiper malware attacks have the capability of completely wiping data off of computer systems , potentially wreaking major havoc on business networks .
Denial of service attacks can work to overload entire computer systems , bringing them to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What 's important for Western governments and businesses to understand regarding the likely Iranian cyber-response is that it will , in all probability , be an extended , ongoing campaign rather than a swift , isolated attack .
Governments and businesses need to remain alert and invest significant resources into their cybersecurity protocols to help themselves prepare for cyber threats and help mitigate the effects of a potential attack .
Cybersecurity teams will need to ensure that their computer systems are properly secured , accessible only to authorised personnel , protected with multi-factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the network is fully backed up in multiple secure locations and formats .
Western governments and private sector businesses can not stand idly by .
They 'll need to employ appropriate defensive measures to protect their digital security .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Attila Tomaschek
Last week's killing of Iran's top military commander, Qasem Soleimani, served to considerably escalate already simmering tensions between the Islamic republic and the US and its allies.
The extraordinary and unforeseen move by Washington is not only certain to further destabilise the Middle East. It has also left US allies – including the UK – in the lurch, with little recourse but to brace for a retaliation, which Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has promised would be "severe", "harsh", and "forceful".
Last night's ballistic missile strike against Western airbases in Iraq may not be the end of the matter. In retaliation for Washington's actions, Iran will certainly look to physically target American interests across the Middle East region. And while direct retaliation against various US allies is not likely in this case, UK forces in the region could inevitably get involved and be directly affected.
Additionally, as is typical in such asymmetrical conflicts, Iran will in all probability also engage in alternative means of striking back, namely in the form of a cyber offensive against US and Western interests online.
Indeed, Iran has a history of engaging in aggressive cyberattacks and has demonstrated a formidable and unyielding capacity to launch cyber campaigns against its adversaries. Iranian hackers have in recent years been accused of targeting the computer networks of several major banks in the US, infiltrating the control system of a dam near New York City, completely wiping the servers of the state-owned oil company in Saudi Arabia, incapacitating Turkey's electricity grid, breaching UK parliamentary accounts, and crippling a Las Vegas casino. If history is any indication, a determined and inexorable cyber response from Iran is what the US and its Western allies should brace for.
That said, sophisticated cyberattacks on critical infrastructure networks like power grids and water systems, although not out of the question, are rather unlikely at this time. Not only are these systems highly secure and resilient, but uncertainties also remain regarding how aggressively Iran will be willing to push this in the face of a potentially substantial US response.
The more probable scenario would likely consist of intensified cyber-espionage campaigns and disruptive cyberattacks such as a denial of service attacks or wiper malware attacks.
Such attacks will be more than just a nuisance, with potentially significant implications. We would expect them to cause costly damage to the global financial sector as well as a whole spectrum of private Western businesses and government entities. Wiper malware attacks have the capability of completely wiping data off of computer systems, potentially wreaking major havoc on business networks. Denial of service attacks can work to overload entire computer systems, bringing them to a grinding halt and effectively incapacitating them.
What's important for Western governments and businesses to understand regarding the likely Iranian cyber-response is that it will, in all probability, be an extended, ongoing campaign rather than a swift, isolated attack. Governments and businesses need to remain alert and invest significant resources into their cybersecurity protocols to help themselves prepare for cyber threats and help mitigate the effects of a potential attack.
Cybersecurity teams will need to ensure that their computer systems are properly secured, accessible only to authorised personnel, protected with multi-factor authentication, and that any data stored on the network is fully backed up in multiple secure locations and formats. Western governments and private sector businesses cannot stand idly by. They'll need to employ appropriate defensive measures to protect their digital security.
Attila Tomaschek is a cybersecurity expert at ProPrivacy.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-09--With his majority in place, Johnson chips away at EU citizen's rights

They 're proper sneaky , that 's the thing about them .
Boris Johnson has used the same tactic throughout .
He makes a promise , then he breaks it , then he wriggles out of having to do the right thing afterwards .
It 's what he does .
And for all his talk of being open and welcoming and liberal , it 's exactly what he 's doing right now on the rights of EU citizens .
The promise came during the EU referendum campaign .
`` There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , alongside Michael Gove and Priti Patel .
`` These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present . ''
He is in fact doing the precise opposite .
EU citizens do not automatically secure their status .
They have to apply .
And they are being treated far less favourably than they were before the referendum .
This system was put in place by Johnson 's predecessor , Theresa May .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister to rectify it , he is chipping away to make it even less secure and give the government - not EU citizens - maximum control .
This week , using his new majority , Johnson bludgeoned the plans through .
He ignored the requests of those saying that the system needed further safeguards .
The pressure group the3million , which represents EU citizens in the UK , laid out detailed information on what people need and why .
They were completely ignored .
His every approach to the issue followed one instinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in law or regulatory supervision , and to replace that with ministerial assurances which are n't worth the paper they 're printed on .
This allows the tactic to work again in future - to make whatever promises you like now and leave yourself room to break them later .
As the withdrawal agreement bill drove through the Commons this week , opposition MPs desperately tried to firm up protections for EU citizens , through a series of amendments .
Fine , so it would n't be automatic .
But could the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline of applying for 'settled status ' - the immigration category European citizens are being put in - by July 2021 ?
If you have n't applied by then , you get sucked up into the hostile environment .
You become an undocumented migrant .
The people who have lived with us for years , for their entire lives in some cases , will suddenly be cast into the grim inhumane reality of the British immigration system .
Ministers say that European citizens have plenty of time .
But that 's not how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a retired French lady and a young Polish guy , '' SNP MP Stuart McDonald told the Commons Chamber on Tuesday , as he fought a desperate rearguard action against the government 's programme .
`` The French lady has been here since the 1970s and had a permanent residence document under the old EU rules .
Understandably , she thought she did not need to apply to stay , but it turns out that , of course , she did .
The Polish guy was born here and because of that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did not apply .
However , it turns out that because his Polish mum and his UK father were not married at the time of his birth , he was not British after all , and he should have applied as well .
Under the government ’ s proposals , that French lady and the young Polish lad will be subject to the full force of the hostile environment . ''
This is key to understanding why application systems are so dangerous , especially when it comes to one trying to function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply do n't know that they need to apply .
Just as during Windrush , they are so deeply engrained in British life , so fully part of it , that is simply never occurs to them .
Others are on the opposite end of the scale - very distant from public life .
That might be because of geography , or culture , or language , or lack of digital skills .
This is especially the case for vulnerable migrants and seasonal workers .
The requirement to apply may simply never have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite their legal right to stay , they will be thrown into the hostile environment machine .
These will not be small numbers .
With so many millions of people of people needing to be processed , just a small percentage of individuals falling through the cracks means misery for tens of thousands , perhaps even hundreds of thousands of people .
Even outside of the programme deadline , there are countless other personal deadlines which create a kind of bespoke individualised immigration status cliff edge .
The settled status app churns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is supposed to apply to people who have been in the UK for less than five years .
They have that status until the five years passes and then they are entitled to the full settled status .
In reality , anyone who has sat with people applying via the app will know that it hands out this status even to people with documentation showing they 've been here longer .
But many applicants , who are nervous of using the system and do n't usually do things like this , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of whether it is correct or not .
At the end of the pre-settled status period , people need to apply for full settled status .
If they do n't , they will fall into the hostile environment .
There are countless millions of these little personal cliff edges , which will start to come online around 2023 , five years after the applications of the earliest adopters of the app , each one of them a potential tragedy .
The government insists it is being reasonable , of course .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the transition period in December 2020 and even after that it will adopt a `` pragmatic '' approach to late applications .
`` If somebody had a good reasonable reason for not applying earlier , we will still process their settled status application - even after June 2021 , '' it said .
But in fact it had no choice about this .
It was locked in by the withdrawal agreement .
The text agreed with the EU guaranteed that the `` deadline for submitting the application shall not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the transition period '' and that the government will allow people to submit late applications `` if there are reasonable grounds for the failure to respect the deadline '' .
Overseeing the whole system is the snappily-titled Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens ’ Rights Agreements .
This is the watchdog which will assess how fair the process is and if the government is complying with the requirements of its deal with the EU .
The exact composition of it is unclear right now .
There 'll be executive and non-executive directors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand this to the Ministry of Justice , rather than the Home Office .
Advocates for European citizens want it led by the chief inspector of borders and immigration , who is at least one step removed from the government and has already worked on the issue .
Alternately , a senior judge could be put in place .
But regardless of how it 's constituted , the entire functioning of the watchdog has been fiddled with to make it more compliant .
As Peter Foster reported in the Telegraph earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary Stephen Barclay raising concerns about the powers the government has given itself to abolish the watchdog .
After the election , Johnson went back and reworked some crucial sections of the withdrawal agreement bill to reflect his newfound power .
Section 39 allowed the government to abolish the body and transfer its function to another public authority if it was concerned about `` efficiency , effectiveness and economy '' - a very vague benchmark .
No-one asked for this .
When the Brexit department and the Home Office were asked if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But No.10 insisted they stay in .
Because if the body is at constant threat of being simply deleted , it is more likely to be compliant .
Wherever you look , you see this same approach : the government attempting to maximise the power it has to change or undermine the system and resisting any efforts to provide Europeans with guarantees .
It 's the same with the right of appeal .
This exists , but it is placed in the world of secondary legislation - ministerial power , which they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the bill went through the Commons this week , opposition MPs demanded that it be made into primary legislation - put in the explicit world of the bill itself , where it would be harder to change .
But of course the government rejected that .
It wants maximum room to manoeuvre .
The same applies to judicial review - the mechanism people can use to take ministers to court to challenge their decisions .
Section 11 ( 3 ) of the bill allows a minister to `` make provision for , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of certain parts of the system .
In other words , to change the judicial review rights .
What does this mean ?
We do n't really know .
It could be a lazy bit of let's-give-it-a-go civil servant flexibility .
Or it could be an attempt to defend against future legal challenges .
Or it could be a experimental test of the judicial review system ahead of a broader challenge down the line .
It 's just not clear .
But the direction of travel is consistent with all the other examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In each case , the same tactic : refusing to listen to what migrants say they need , making the life of EU citizens harder and less secure , giving the government maximum room to manoeuvre .
It would be troubling anyway .
But it is especially troubling given that the operating procedure of the prime minister always follows the same pattern : Make promise , break promise , betray immigrants .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

They're proper sneaky, that's the thing about them. Boris Johnson has used the same tactic throughout. He makes a promise, then he breaks it, then he wriggles out of having to do the right thing afterwards. It's what he does. And for all his talk of being open and welcoming and liberal, it's exactly what he's doing right now on the rights of EU citizens.
The promise came during the EU referendum campaign. "There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK," he wrote at the time, alongside Michael Gove and Priti Patel. "These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present."
A clear promise. It was broken immediately.
He is in fact doing the precise opposite. EU citizens do not automatically secure their status. They have to apply. And they are being treated far less favourably than they were before the referendum.
This system was put in place by Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May. But instead of using his time as prime minister to rectify it, he is chipping away to make it even less secure and give the government – not EU citizens – maximum control.
This week, using his new majority, Johnson bludgeoned the plans through. He ignored the requests of those saying that the system needed further safeguards. The pressure group the3million, which represents EU citizens in the UK, laid out detailed information on what people need and why. They were completely ignored.
His every approach to the issue followed one instinct: to avoid firm guarantees, either in law or regulatory supervision, and to replace that with ministerial assurances which aren't worth the paper they're printed on. This allows the tactic to work again in future – to make whatever promises you like now and leave yourself room to break them later.
As the withdrawal agreement bill drove through the Commons this week, opposition MPs desperately tried to firm up protections for EU citizens, through a series of amendments. Fine, so it wouldn't be automatic. But could the government at least get rid of its harsh deadline of applying for 'settled status' – the immigration category European citizens are being put in – by July 2021?
If you haven't applied by then, you get sucked up into the hostile environment. You become an undocumented migrant. The people who have lived with us for years, for their entire lives in some cases, will suddenly be cast into the grim inhumane reality of the British immigration system.
Ministers say that European citizens have plenty of time. But that's not how it works in reality. "Imagine a retired French lady and a young Polish guy," SNP MP Stuart McDonald told the Commons Chamber on Tuesday, as he fought a desperate rearguard action against the government's programme.
"The French lady has been here since the 1970s and had a permanent residence document under the old EU rules. Understandably, she thought she did not need to apply to stay, but it turns out that, of course, she did. The Polish guy was born here and because of that he believed that he was British, so he did not apply. However, it turns out that because his Polish mum and his UK father were not married at the time of his birth, he was not British after all, and he should have applied as well. Under the government’s proposals, that French lady and the young Polish lad will be subject to the full force of the hostile environment."
This is key to understanding why application systems are so dangerous, especially when it comes to one trying to function for three million people. Many people simply don't know that they need to apply. Just as during Windrush, they are so deeply engrained in British life, so fully part of it, that is simply never occurs to them.
Others are on the opposite end of the scale – very distant from public life. That might be because of geography, or culture, or language, or lack of digital skills. This is especially the case for vulnerable migrants and seasonal workers. The requirement to apply may simply never have become clear. And then suddenly, despite their legal right to stay, they will be thrown into the hostile environment machine.
These will not be small numbers. With so many millions of people of people needing to be processed, just a small percentage of individuals falling through the cracks means misery for tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of people.
Even outside of the programme deadline, there are countless other personal deadlines which create a kind of bespoke individualised immigration status cliff edge.
The settled status app churns out allocations of something called pre-settled status. This is supposed to apply to people who have been in the UK for less than five years. They have that status until the five years passes and then they are entitled to the full settled status.
In reality, anyone who has sat with people applying via the app will know that it hands out this status even to people with documentation showing they've been here longer. But many applicants, who are nervous of using the system and don't usually do things like this, will simply accept the status it gives them, regardless of whether it is correct or not.
At the end of the pre-settled status period, people need to apply for full settled status. If they don't, they will fall into the hostile environment. There are countless millions of these little personal cliff edges, which will start to come online around 2023, five years after the applications of the earliest adopters of the app, each one of them a potential tragedy.
The government insists it is being reasonable, of course. It's added six months leeway after the end of the transition period in December 2020 and even after that it will adopt a "pragmatic" approach to late applications. "If somebody had a good reasonable reason for not applying earlier, we will still process their settled status application – even after June 2021," it said.
But in fact it had no choice about this. It was locked in by the withdrawal agreement. The text agreed with the EU guaranteed that the "deadline for submitting the application shall not be less than six months from the end of the transition period" and that the government will allow people to submit late applications "if there are reasonable grounds for the failure to respect the deadline".
Overseeing the whole system is the snappily-titled Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements. This is the watchdog which will assess how fair the process is and if the government is complying with the requirements of its deal with the EU.
The exact composition of it is unclear right now. There'll be executive and non-executive directors. Sources suggest the government wants to hand this to the Ministry of Justice, rather than the Home Office. Advocates for European citizens want it led by the chief inspector of borders and immigration, who is at least one step removed from the government and has already worked on the issue. Alternately, a senior judge could be put in place.
But regardless of how it's constituted, the entire functioning of the watchdog has been fiddled with to make it more compliant. As Peter Foster reported in the Telegraph earlier this week, the EU have written to Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay raising concerns about the powers the government has given itself to abolish the watchdog.
After the election, Johnson went back and reworked some crucial sections of the withdrawal agreement bill to reflect his newfound power. Section 39 allowed the government to abolish the body and transfer its function to another public authority if it was concerned about "efficiency, effectiveness and economy" – a very vague benchmark.
No-one asked for this. When the Brexit department and the Home Office were asked if they wanted the powers, they said no. But No.10 insisted they stay in. Because if the body is at constant threat of being simply deleted, it is more likely to be compliant.
Wherever you look, you see this same approach: the government attempting to maximise the power it has to change or undermine the system and resisting any efforts to provide Europeans with guarantees.
It's the same with the right of appeal. This exists, but it is placed in the world of secondary legislation – ministerial power, which they can mess with at a whim. When the bill went through the Commons this week, opposition MPs demanded that it be made into primary legislation – put in the explicit world of the bill itself, where it would be harder to change. But of course the government rejected that. It wants maximum room to manoeuvre.
The same applies to judicial review – the mechanism people can use to take ministers to court to challenge their decisions. Section 11(3) of the bill allows a minister to "make provision for, or in connection with, reviews" of certain parts of the system. In other words, to change the judicial review rights.
What does this mean? We don't really know. It could be a lazy bit of let's-give-it-a-go civil servant flexibility. Or it could be an attempt to defend against future legal challenges. Or it could be a experimental test of the judicial review system ahead of a broader challenge down the line. It's just not clear. But the direction of travel is consistent with all the other examples: freeing the government from restraint.
In each case, the same tactic: refusing to listen to what migrants say they need, making the life of EU citizens harder and less secure, giving the government maximum room to manoeuvre.
It would be troubling anyway. But it is especially troubling given that the operating procedure of the prime minister always follows the same pattern: Make promise, break promise, betray immigrants.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-10--Week in Review: Make them own it

Week in Review: Make them own it

Two good things came from the election result .
You had to search for them in the great expanse of despair in which we found ourselves , but they were there .
First , it forced Labour to change its leader .
That is an unalloyed good .
All of the candidates are better than Jeremy Corbyn .
Even Rebecca Long-Bailey , who has really very little to recommend her , would be a significant improvement .
Second , it meant that the Brexiters finally have to own their project .
They have a massive majority .
The withdrawal agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
There 's no more Leavers vs Remainers , no more parliament vs government .
They 're in control .
And that means this is all on them .
The great crushing reality of the trade talks will now take over .
The warnings we 've made over the last three years are about to be actualised .
The government could have taken its significant new majority as an opportunity to finally tell the truth about what this would entail .
That it would take a long time .
That it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that out loud seems laughable .
Of course , they continued with the relentless lies .
Because that is all , in the end , that allows this project to proceed .
They say it can all be done in a year .
It can not .
Even if the trade talks themselves can be finished in a year , which is unlikely , the ratification and implementation will take longer .
They say there will be no checks between Northern Ireland and Britain .
There will be .
It is quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realities of trade .
But to admit this would be to concede that instead of securing a brilliant deal , as Boris Johnson claimed , he actually just capitulated to a deal which even Theresa May thought was intolerable .
They say they want to close off EU access to our fishing waters .
But if they do this , the EU will reciprocate by putting up barriers to our ability to sell our fish into their market .
It 's not liberation .
It 's the last scene of Reservoir Dogs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the EU .
If so the relationship will be punishingly distant and bureaucratic for British exporters .
Modern trade functions on the basis of alignment , whoever you are trading with .
The EU is simply much more sophisticated , and of course much closer , than other markets .
They say they wo n't reduce food standards in the event of a deal with the US .
They will , or the deal will be without any substance whatsoever .
This is the reality of what will happen .
The real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecosystem of simple slogans and gibbering cynical nonsense .
It could n't take place at a worse time .
Remainers are bruised .
Years of campaigning only to be totally defeated .
Years of trying to highlight the national interest and the reality of the threats that face us , only for the election to deliver a firm result for infantile simplification and outright deception .
The temptation is to look away .
To just ignore it all for a while .
To get lost in things that make us feel better .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hands them control of the narrative just when it is at its most malleable .
When things start going wrong , and the trade-offs impinge on the fairy tale , they will blame the EU .
They will say it is intransigent or unimaginative or arrogant .
It 'll be false .
The failures will be a result of strategising on the basis of myth rather than reality , of failing to accept the limitations of the world and working around them , of plotting your military movements over a map of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to objectively report on the reality of what is happening .
To deny them the opportunity of creating another made-up story .
There will be damage from these decisions .
That 's why Remainers have opposed them .
The wealthy will be fine .
They always are .
But the poor will be hurt .
And they will include those former Labour voters in northern towns who lent Johnson their vote .
We can not stop that damage now .
We tried and we failed .
We can urge the government to limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there is little chance of them doing so .
So instead , at the least - at the very bitter painful least - we can point out why it is happening .
We can tell the truth .
This is a precondition of a successful campaign to rejoin in ten years or so : making sure that people see that the decline in their living standards is the result of Brexit .
But it is also something else .
It is its own kind of rearguard moral defence .
Because when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they will blame everyone but themselves .
They will blame the EU .
And they will blame immigrants .
And in a period of declining prosperity , they will push a narrative of division against the weakest people in society .
The best way to fight that is to make sure they ca n't wriggle out of it now .
To set the narrative in fact .
We have to make them own it .
Fully , completely and without caveat .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Two good things came from the election result. You had to search for them in the great expanse of despair in which we found ourselves, but they were there.
First, it forced Labour to change its leader. That is an unalloyed good. All of the candidates are better than Jeremy Corbyn. Even Rebecca Long-Bailey, who has really very little to recommend her, would be a significant improvement.
Second, it meant that the Brexiters finally have to own their project. They have a massive majority. The withdrawal agreement bill zoomed through its Commons stages this week. There's no more Leavers vs Remainers, no more parliament vs government. They're in control. And that means this is all on them.
The great crushing reality of the trade talks will now take over. The warnings we've made over the last three years are about to be actualised.
The government could have taken its significant new majority as an opportunity to finally tell the truth about what this would entail. That it would take a long time. That it would involve painful trade offs. But even saying that out loud seems laughable. Of course, they continued with the relentless lies. Because that is all, in the end, that allows this project to proceed.
They say it can all be done in a year. It cannot. Even if the trade talks themselves can be finished in a year, which is unlikely, the ratification and implementation will take longer.
They say there will be no checks between Northern Ireland and Britain. There will be. It is quite clear from the agreed text and the realities of trade. But to admit this would be to concede that instead of securing a brilliant deal, as Boris Johnson claimed, he actually just capitulated to a deal which even Theresa May thought was intolerable.
They say they want to close off EU access to our fishing waters. But if they do this, the EU will reciprocate by putting up barriers to our ability to sell our fish into their market. It's not liberation. It's the last scene of Reservoir Dogs.
They say they want no regulatory alignment with the EU. If so the relationship will be punishingly distant and bureaucratic for British exporters. Modern trade functions on the basis of alignment, whoever you are trading with. The EU is simply much more sophisticated, and of course much closer, than other markets.
They say they won't reduce food standards in the event of a deal with the US. They will, or the deal will be without any substance whatsoever.
This is the reality of what will happen. The real world of trade-offs rather than the unicorn ecosystem of simple slogans and gibbering cynical nonsense.
It couldn't take place at a worse time. Remainers are bruised. Years of campaigning only to be totally defeated. Years of trying to highlight the national interest and the reality of the threats that face us, only for the election to deliver a firm result for infantile simplification and outright deception.
The temptation is to look away. To just ignore it all for a while. To get lost in things that make us feel better. To not watch the news. But that hands them control of the narrative just when it is at its most malleable.
When things start going wrong, and the trade-offs impinge on the fairy tale, they will blame the EU. They will say it is intransigent or unimaginative or arrogant.
It'll be false. The failures will be a result of strategising on the basis of myth rather than reality, of failing to accept the limitations of the world and working around them, of plotting your military movements over a map of Narnia.
The crucial task now is to objectively report on the reality of what is happening. To deny them the opportunity of creating another made-up story.
There will be damage from these decisions. That's why Remainers have opposed them. The wealthy will be fine. They always are. But the poor will be hurt. And they will include those former Labour voters in northern towns who lent Johnson their vote.
We cannot stop that damage now. We tried and we failed. We can urge the government to limit it by going back on its commitments, but there is little chance of them doing so. So instead, at the least – at the very bitter painful least – we can point out why it is happening. We can tell the truth.
This is a precondition of a successful campaign to rejoin in ten years or so: making sure that people see that the decline in their living standards is the result of Brexit.
But it is also something else. It is its own kind of rearguard moral defence. Because when the Brexiters' dream turn to ash, they will blame everyone but themselves. They will blame the EU. And they will blame immigrants. And in a period of declining prosperity, they will push a narrative of division against the weakest people in society.
The best way to fight that is to make sure they can't wriggle out of it now. To set the narrative in fact. We have to make them own it. Fully, completely and without caveat.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-13--A new movement out of the ashes: What now for Remain?

The battle to keep the UK in the EU has been lost .
For many of us , this has meant everything for the past four years .
It 's devastating .
For the Brexiters though , it has only ever been one battle in a wider war .
This war is on progress , on rights , and on liberal Enlightenment values .
Leaving the EU was both an end in itself and a means to gain the power they needed to rebuild society and politics in their own populist image .
They 're winning this war .
Stopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the fight we now have to face .
A rejoin movement is tempting , but the reality is that a sea-change in attitudes will be required for the EU to have any interest in the UK as a member .
That sea-change is not just a matter of whether or not more than 50 % of the population want EU membership , but whether , by the time rejoin is an issue , the UK is still a country that shares Europe 's values .
At the moment , it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to drift further away if the government gets its way .
The values on which the EU was founded are set out in Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty .
We have seen the government ’ s lack of regard for human dignity time and again , from Windrush to Universal Credit , to the cruelty of disability assessments .
We know that many ministers see human rights as an impediment to their will , rather than the basis for a functioning society .
The government went out of its way to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights and non-discrimination from the binding withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration .
In the last few years we have witnessed attacks on the independence of the judiciary and the civil service , the whipping up of hatred towards foreigners and minorities , and a disregard for parliamentary democracy .
The treatment of EU citizens in the UK has been atrocious and the UK 's own citizens in Europe have been hung out to dry by their own government .
This is not a government that will , released from the framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote European values .
Quite the opposite .
So the movement to rejoin is the movement to protect rights .
It must move attitudes from the closed , authoritarian , intolerant , anti-truth , fear-and-hate narrative that Brexiters have promoted .
Without that , the UK - particularly without the progressive influence of Scotland , which must now surely go its own way - can never be fit for the purpose of rejoining the European project .
Remain is , as a movement , in a position to lead this .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed grassroots activists , social media networks , and a formidable network of politically engaged people committed specifically and actively to European values .
We also have a chance to learn lessons from our lost battle .
A key one is that the political parties can not be relied upon to do this themselves .
In hindsight , we could never have won without cooperation between opposition parties , and , unbeknownst to us , that was never going to happen .
Assuming it magically will happen in the future is to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we compensate for that ?
Individual organisations and groups of activists will be fighting to defend rights and equalities in each of the individual areas where they 're under attack , but each is unlikely to be big enough on its own to stem the tide .
We therefore need to marshall our activists and organisations to work in parallel , to coordinate and support each other on each issue .
The best idea I 've seen for this is Dan Sohenge 's recently-launched Stand For All .
It aims to pool expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and individuals standing up for rights , equality and the vulnerable .
Tribalism and egos will only undermine this fight .
Cooperation and coordination can only help it .
A network of solidarity and pooled resources , where one group 's fight becomes that of the others , is essential to a proper defence against the government .
These will be a series of short-to-medium-term policy fights , but we also need a way to defend the wider values we 've been fighting for in our battle to remain in the EU .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are particularly interested in the EU .
For rejoiners , this is the long-term proxy-battle that must be won first for rejoining to be anything but a pipe-dream .
The fight we face is along a new political axis that is open vs closed , progressive vs regressive , rights vs anti-rights , equality vs anti-equality , internationalist vs xenophobic , tolerant vs intolerant .
Parties are not fit for purpose to fight in a unified way on that new axis .
So we have to do it .
We need Remain and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass-membership , cross-party organisation in pursuit of fundamental European values .
Organisations like the European Movement have already been doing this for years .
All of us in Remain have already been doing this under an anti-Brexit banner , whether we realised it or not .
This now must be done in a focussed way .
It should not take place under an EU flag that harks back to a battle lost .
This has to be a new movement growing out of ashes , not an old one with a different name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there are members of all of the major parties - yes , even the Conservatives - who have a fundamental belief in these values , even if they disagree on what implementing them looks like .
This should not be an anti-party movement , but a meta-party .
Membership would hopefully be based initially on the existing cross-party memberships of Remain organisations .
New members should be encouraged from all parties and none , and it should work to send its message back to all parties or organisations that members come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , explain , convince and extol European Enlightenment values as an alternative to the hate , fear and spite pursued by those in power .
I ca n't propose who should bring this together , but it is startlingly obvious that it should be driven by those who have been out in the streets , at meetings , and on social media , extolling these values for the last four years - and not those political strategists who have spent those years too scared to positively extol European values lest it score badly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our aim , must be the sea-change in attitudes that is necessary for rejoining the European project to be a plausible possibility .
These two fights - to protect rights , and to revive these values - are n't an alternative to a campaign to rejoin .
They are the first and necessary steps in it .
Nobody 's coming to save us here .
We have to do it ourselves .
Steve Bullock is a pro-EU campaigner and commentator who has worked in the European Commission and European parliament , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU .
He tweets on politics , the EU and music as @ guitarmoog .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Steve Bullock
The battle to keep the UK in the EU has been lost. For many of us, this has meant everything for the past four years. It's devastating. For the Brexiters though, it has only ever been one battle in a wider war. This war is on progress, on rights, and on liberal Enlightenment values. Leaving the EU was both an end in itself and a means to gain the power they needed to rebuild society and politics in their own populist image.
They're winning this war. Stopping their advance, and rolling it back, is the fight we now have to face.
A rejoin movement is tempting, but the reality is that a sea-change in attitudes will be required for the EU to have any interest in the UK as a member. That sea-change is not just a matter of whether or not more than 50% of the population want EU membership, but whether, by the time rejoin is an issue, the UK is still a country that shares Europe's values. At the moment, it does not. And its values are set to drift further away if the government gets its way.
The values on which the EU was founded are set out in Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty.
"The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."
We have seen the government’s lack of regard for human dignity time and again, from Windrush to Universal Credit, to the cruelty of disability assessments. We know that many ministers see human rights as an impediment to their will, rather than the basis for a functioning society.
The government went out of its way to move the 'level-playing-field' provisions on workers’ rights and non-discrimination from the binding withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration. In the last few years we have witnessed attacks on the independence of the judiciary and the civil service, the whipping up of hatred towards foreigners and minorities, and a disregard for parliamentary democracy. The treatment of EU citizens in the UK has been atrocious and the UK's own citizens in Europe have been hung out to dry by their own government.
This is not a government that will, released from the framework of the EU, protect rights and promote European values. Quite the opposite.
So the movement to rejoin is the movement to protect rights. It must move attitudes from the closed, authoritarian, intolerant, anti-truth, fear-and-hate narrative that Brexiters have promoted. Without that, the UK – particularly without the progressive influence of Scotland, which must now surely go its own way – can never be fit for the purpose of rejoining the European project.
Remain is, as a movement, in a position to lead this. We have cross-party, mass-membership organisations. We have committed grassroots activists, social media networks, and a formidable network of politically engaged people committed specifically and actively to European values.
We also have a chance to learn lessons from our lost battle. A key one is that the political parties cannot be relied upon to do this themselves. In hindsight, we could never have won without cooperation between opposition parties, and, unbeknownst to us, that was never going to happen. Assuming it magically will happen in the future is to make the same mistake again.
How do we compensate for that? Individual organisations and groups of activists will be fighting to defend rights and equalities in each of the individual areas where they're under attack, but each is unlikely to be big enough on its own to stem the tide. We therefore need to marshall our activists and organisations to work in parallel, to coordinate and support each other on each issue.
The best idea I've seen for this is Dan Sohenge's recently-launched Stand For All. It aims to pool expertise, strategy and messaging for all organisations and individuals standing up for rights, equality and the vulnerable. Tribalism and egos will only undermine this fight. Cooperation and coordination can only help it. A network of solidarity and pooled resources, where one group's fight becomes that of the others, is essential to a proper defence against the government.
These will be a series of short-to-medium-term policy fights, but we also need a way to defend the wider values we've been fighting for in our battle to remain in the EU. We need to move beyond those who are particularly interested in the EU. For rejoiners, this is the long-term proxy-battle that must be won first for rejoining to be anything but a pipe-dream.
The fight we face is along a new political axis that is open vs closed, progressive vs regressive, rights vs anti-rights, equality vs anti-equality, internationalist vs xenophobic, tolerant vs intolerant. Parties are not fit for purpose to fight in a unified way on that new axis. So we have to do it.
We need Remain and its organisations to turn itself into a mass-membership, cross-party organisation in pursuit of fundamental European values. Organisations like the European Movement have already been doing this for years. All of us in Remain have already been doing this under an anti-Brexit banner, whether we realised it or not. This now must be done in a focussed way. It should not take place under an EU flag that harks back to a battle lost. This has to be a new movement growing out of ashes, not an old one with a different name.
Parties cannot do this themselves, but there are members of all of the major parties – yes, even the Conservatives – who have a fundamental belief in these values, even if they disagree on what implementing them looks like.
This should not be an anti-party movement, but a meta-party. Membership would hopefully be based initially on the existing cross-party memberships of Remain organisations. New members should be encouraged from all parties and none, and it should work to send its message back to all parties or organisations that members come from. It should look to promote, explain, convince and extol European Enlightenment values as an alternative to the hate, fear and spite pursued by those in power.
I can't propose who should bring this together, but it is startlingly obvious that it should be driven by those who have been out in the streets, at meetings, and on social media, extolling these values for the last four years – and not those political strategists who have spent those years too scared to positively extol European values lest it score badly in their focus groups.
Its aim, our aim, must be the sea-change in attitudes that is necessary for rejoining the European project to be a plausible possibility. These two fights – to protect rights, and to revive these values – aren't an alternative to a campaign to rejoin. They are the first and necessary steps in it. Nobody's coming to save us here. We have to do it ourselves.
Steve Bullock is a pro-EU campaigner and commentator who has worked in the European Commission and European parliament, and as a negotiator for the UK in the EU. He tweets on politics, the EU and music as @guitarmoog.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-24--Week in Review: No compromise as Johnson drives through the most brutal Brexit imaginable

Where 's the offer ?
That 's the main question .
The government says it is extending the hand of friendship to Remainers and that 's very nice to hear .
But what 's the actual offer behind it ?
Boris Johnson 's new year 's message seemed to promise something .
`` I want to reassure you that I will be a prime minister for everyone , not just those who voted for me , '' he said .
`` I know that you love this country no less , simply because you voted for another party or wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He had a large majority now .
Perhaps this gave him the freedom to be more conciliatory , to actually introduce policies which might unite the country rather than divide it .
But that 's not what we got .
In fact every decision , every statement , seems to go in the precise opposite direction .
It seeks the approval of the most hardline and extreme Leave opinion and discards even the most moderate of Remain demands .
Take Lord Dubs ' amendment this week .
He had sought for the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refugees .
`` What could be more humane than asking that unaccompanied child refugees stranded in Europe be able to join relatives in this country ? ''
he asked .
Genuinely what indeed .
Which distorted masquerade of political morality would consider that in any way controversial ?
This provision had even been in the bill , but it was removed after the election victory .
No need for that sort of thing anymore .
Stephen Barclay insisted the government was still committed to it , but that it did not require legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , given the government has just legislated to force the prime minister to stick to his own one-year timetable on Brexit trade talks - a grimly insane move in which leaders now create law to ensure they stick to the promises they themselves have set .
Why would that require legislation but not this ?
Indeed there was an awful lot to learn from what apparently required a law and what did not .
Another amendment focused on Erasmus , the scheme which funds young people to train and study across Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you could imagine a programme being .
One study even found that a quarter of those who take part in it meet their partner during their time abroad - with over a million babies produced as a result .
Living testaments to a shared European culture , regardless of EU membership .
The amendment was shot down , of course .
As with the Dubs amendment , the government insists it intends to do it , but it wo n't legislate for it .
Another amendment asked for physical documentation to prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's about as modest a demand as they could have made , given they have been relentlessly lied to by the government .
First they were told there would be no change in their status .
Then they were held as negotiation hostages by Theresa May .
Then they had a flawed application system imposed on them .
And now they are asking for this one basic thing : physical proof of a right to live here .
At the moment it is entirely online .
A database proves your right of residence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down countless demands for proof of immigration status , from hospitals , landlords and others .
It has essentially outsourced immigration enforcement to the public .
In that context , having a recognised document makes life much easier .
It means a landlord would not need to go online and make checks on someone 's status - something they might not be bothered to do , or may not be convinced by .
Instead they could just look at the document .
And yet this too was denied .
Not an inch will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future relationship with the EU .
Speaking to the Financial Times last weekend , chancellor Sajid Javid insisted there would be no regulatory alignment whatsoever .
Despite the desperate pleas of British industry , which relies on a lack of checks to maintain its production system across the continent , the government was going to disconnect from everything .
In many areas , like aerospace and automobiles , there is simply no upside to this whatsoever .
But Javid knows that any EU supervision of British regulations , which is what a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poison to the Brexit hardliners .
So their interests are placed above those of British companies and workers .
There is , quite simply , no offer .
Not even on the most harmless and uncontroversial of Remain requests .
There is no movement to the 48 % whatsoever .
Instead , there is just the rhetoric of reaching out , of can't-we-all-be-friends .
But friendship requires some movement .
It requires a little compromise .
Where there is none , it is not possible .
What is being pursued is the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the customs union , not just outside the single market , but without any meaningful linkage whatsoever - without even the symbols of linkage .
Full victory in the culture war .
It is the most extreme interpretation of the vote outside of no-deal .
In that context , the request for friendship is actually something altogether more sinister : it is a demand that you shut up .
That you be silent , so that the programme which is being delivered can be made to appear like the will of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tribal faction .
It is a dismal way to behave , although it is also entirely in line with the new form of political leadership , followed both here and in the US , where political leaders cement their position not by trying to attract the broadest collection of voters but by relentlessly delivering for their tribal base .
However , it also has another effect .
It outrages and incentivises the opposition to maintain the fight .
If Remainers really did feel that they were being taken into account - and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defeat as last month , that actually might not require a lot - they would be more likely to accept what was happening .
Because they are not , they can not .
The extremism of the project creates its own continued opposition .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or @ @ @

Where's the offer? That's the main question. The government says it is extending the hand of friendship to Remainers and that's very nice to hear. But what's the actual offer behind it?
Boris Johnson's new year's message seemed to promise something. "I want to reassure you that I will be a prime minister for everyone, not just those who voted for me," he said. "I know that you love this country no less, simply because you voted for another party or wanted to remain." Admirable stuff. He had a large majority now. Perhaps this gave him the freedom to be more conciliatory, to actually introduce policies which might unite the country rather than divide it.
But that's not what we got. In fact every decision, every statement, seems to go in the precise opposite direction. It seeks the approval of the most hardline and extreme Leave opinion and discards even the most moderate of Remain demands.
Take Lord Dubs' amendment this week. He had sought for the government to guarantee family reunion rights for child refugees. "What could be more humane than asking that unaccompanied child refugees stranded in Europe be able to join relatives in this country?" he asked. Genuinely what indeed. Which distorted masquerade of political morality would consider that in any way controversial?
This provision had even been in the bill, but it was removed after the election victory. No need for that sort of thing anymore.
Stephen Barclay insisted the government was still committed to it, but that it did not require legislation. It was an extraordinary thing to say, given the government has just legislated to force the prime minister to stick to his own one-year timetable on Brexit trade talks – a grimly insane move in which leaders now create law to ensure they stick to the promises they themselves have set. Why would that require legislation but not this?
Indeed there was an awful lot to learn from what apparently required a law and what did not. Another amendment focused on Erasmus, the scheme which funds young people to train and study across Europe. It is about as plainly beneficial as you could imagine a programme being. One study even found that a quarter of those who take part in it meet their partner during their time abroad – with over a million babies produced as a result. Living testaments to a shared European culture, regardless of EU membership.
The amendment was shot down, of course. As with the Dubs amendment, the government insists it intends to do it, but it won't legislate for it.
Another amendment asked for physical documentation to prove European citizens' settled status. It's about as modest a demand as they could have made, given they have been relentlessly lied to by the government. First they were told there would be no change in their status. Then they were held as negotiation hostages by Theresa May. Then they had a flawed application system imposed on them. And now they are asking for this one basic thing: physical proof of a right to live here.
At the moment it is entirely online. A database proves your right of residence. But the hostile environment has put down countless demands for proof of immigration status, from hospitals, landlords and others. It has essentially outsourced immigration enforcement to the public.
In that context, having a recognised document makes life much easier. It means a landlord would not need to go online and make checks on someone's status – something they might not be bothered to do, or may not be convinced by. Instead they could just look at the document. And yet this too was denied. Not an inch will be given.
The same applies to the future relationship with the EU. Speaking to the Financial Times last weekend, chancellor Sajid Javid insisted there would be no regulatory alignment whatsoever. Despite the desperate pleas of British industry, which relies on a lack of checks to maintain its production system across the continent, the government was going to disconnect from everything.
In many areas, like aerospace and automobiles, there is simply no upside to this whatsoever. But Javid knows that any EU supervision of British regulations, which is what a close relationship would entail, would be poison to the Brexit hardliners. So their interests are placed above those of British companies and workers.
There is, quite simply, no offer. Not even on the most harmless and uncontroversial of Remain requests. There is no movement to the 48% whatsoever. Instead, there is just the rhetoric of reaching out, of can't-we-all-be-friends. But friendship requires some movement. It requires a little compromise. Where there is none, it is not possible.
What is being pursued is the most hard Brexit imaginable – not just outside of the customs union, not just outside the single market, but without any meaningful linkage whatsoever – without even the symbols of linkage. Full victory in the culture war.
It is the most extreme interpretation of the vote outside of no-deal. In that context, the request for friendship is actually something altogether more sinister: it is a demand that you shut up. That you be silent, so that the programme which is being delivered can be made to appear like the will of the people, rather than the agenda of a tribal faction.
It is a dismal way to behave, although it is also entirely in line with the new form of political leadership, followed both here and in the US, where political leaders cement their position not by trying to attract the broadest collection of voters but by relentlessly delivering for their tribal base.
However, it also has another effect. It outrages and incentivises the opposition to maintain the fight. If Remainers really did feel that they were being taken into account – and at this stage, under so catastrophic a defeat as last month, that actually might not require a lot – they would be more likely to accept what was happening. Because they are not, they cannot. The extremism of the project creates its own continued opposition.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-28--What exactly is the Huawei security threat?

The British government appears to be on the verge of giving Chinese tech giant Huawei the green light to build its 5G infrastructure , even in the face of dire warnings from officials in the United States decrying the company as a severe threat to national security .
As ministers in the UK prepare to make their final decision on the matter , a delegation from US President Donald Trump 's administration presented the British government with what members of the delegation have referred to as fresh evidence of the security risks they believe are posed by Huawei .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically what the new evidence may encompass , one delegation member hinted that part of the risk revolves around speculation that Huawei may be engaged in deliberately implementing vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited by the Chinese government to conduct mass surveillance on a global scale .
Huawei , of course , vehemently denies any assertion that the company poses security threats in any capacity .
However , if US officials ' assessment of the risk were to be accurate , that would mean Huawei is giving the Chinese government a direct avenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and extensive surveillance practices .
Security and intelligence experts in the UK are nonetheless downplaying the severity of the warnings coming from the US , claiming that the security risks associated with Huawei - including those just recently presented by the US delegation - had already been taken into account and that UK agencies were fully prepared to mitigate any such threats to its national security .
MI5 director-general Andrew Parker also indicated that any security threat posed by Huawei would be manageable , as the company 's role in developing the 5G @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the UK 's new mobile network , in accordance with last spring 's preliminary decision under Theresa May .
However , it is part of the general nature of 5G networks that critical elements of the network can still be located towards the edge , effectively blurring the distinction between core and non-core parts of the network .
Therefore , even if Huawei 's role in developing the UK 's 5G network is limited , that does n't necessarily mean that it will be sufficiently resistant to the security threats specified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without any concrete indication as to exactly what specific evidence US officials may have regarding the Chinese tech giant 's threats to national security it is difficult to fully or even sufficiently assess the true severity of the risks posed .
What we do know is that the Chinese government has a well-documented inclination for international espionage and for oppressive and authoritarian surveillance practices .
That , compounded with Huawei ’ s allegedly close ties to the Chinese government , the company ’ s critical lack of transparency , along with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese companies turn over data to authorities upon request , is a serious cause for concern and certainly does n't provide much credence to any argument from the company attempting to claim that it poses no security threat whatsoever .
Downing Street , however , seems ready to bet on UK security advisers ' assessments that the warnings coming from the US are being blown out of proportion and that the security risks are minimal .
Ultimately though , it remains difficult to make a solid , substantiated argument in favour of Huawei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telecom provider that can be entrusted to build out a secure 5G network in the UK .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Attila Tomaschek
The British government appears to be on the verge of giving Chinese tech giant Huawei the green light to build its 5G infrastructure, even in the face of dire warnings from officials in the United States decrying the company as a severe threat to national security. As ministers in the UK prepare to make their final decision on the matter, a delegation from US President Donald Trump's administration presented the British government with what members of the delegation have referred to as fresh evidence of the security risks they believe are posed by Huawei.
While US officials are declining to comment on specifically what the new evidence may encompass, one delegation member hinted that part of the risk revolves around speculation that Huawei may be engaged in deliberately implementing vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited by the Chinese government to conduct mass surveillance on a global scale. Huawei, of course, vehemently denies any assertion that the company poses security threats in any capacity. However, if US officials' assessment of the risk were to be accurate, that would mean Huawei is giving the Chinese government a direct avenue to further broaden its already notoriously authoritarian and extensive surveillance practices.
Security and intelligence experts in the UK are nonetheless downplaying the severity of the warnings coming from the US, claiming that the security risks associated with Huawei – including those just recently presented by the US delegation – had already been taken into account and that UK agencies were fully prepared to mitigate any such threats to its national security.
MI5 director-general Andrew Parker also indicated that any security threat posed by Huawei would be manageable, as the company's role in developing the 5G infrastructure would be restricted to 'non-core' parts of the UK's new mobile network, in accordance with last spring's preliminary decision under Theresa May. However, it is part of the general nature of 5G networks that critical elements of the network can still be located towards the edge, effectively blurring the distinction between core and non-core parts of the network. Therefore, even if Huawei's role in developing the UK's 5G network is limited, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be sufficiently resistant to the security threats specified by US officials.
That being said, without any concrete indication as to exactly what specific evidence US officials may have regarding the Chinese tech giant's threats to national security it is difficult to fully or even sufficiently assess the true severity of the risks posed. What we do know is that the Chinese government has a well-documented inclination for international espionage and for oppressive and authoritarian surveillance practices. That, compounded with Huawei’s allegedly close ties to the Chinese government, the company’s critical lack of transparency, along with the government's lawful authority to demand that Chinese companies turn over data to authorities upon request, is a serious cause for concern and certainly doesn't provide much credence to any argument from the company attempting to claim that it poses no security threat whatsoever.
Downing Street, however, seems ready to bet on UK security advisers' assessments that the warnings coming from the US are being blown out of proportion and that the security risks are minimal. Ultimately though, it remains difficult to make a solid, substantiated argument in favour of Huawei's credibility as a reliable and risk-free telecom provider that can be entrusted to build out a secure 5G network in the UK.
Attila Tomaschek is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-01-29--Reducing people to income: The bleak vision of the new immigration report

Yesterday 's Migration Advisory Committee ( MAC ) report painted a bleak vision .
The group was tasked by the Home Office to look into the salary threshold and a possible future points-based system for work-based immigration .
It proposed a post-Brexit system that combines them .
If implemented , such a system would see our communities become financially , socially and culturally poorer , and many of those eager to come and work in the UK and contribute to our society barred .
The Scottish government , on the other hand , has got it right .
Their paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a system based on salaries and points as `` disastrous '' and celebrates the contributions of migrants to Scotland 's cultural life and communities , as well as its coffers .
There are some chinks of light in the MAC report .
The recommendations to lower the general salary threshold and take it even lower for young workers is welcome , as is the plan to create more flexible paths to settlement .
It suggests broadening the definition of 'new entrant ' .
But the rest makes for dismal reading for those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commodities .
In the system envisioned by the MAC , those with a job offer could come to the UK if their future salary is at least £25,600 .
This is a welcome decrease from the widely touted £30,000 threshold , but does not go nearly far enough .
We want to see the salary threshold – which crudely reduces a person 's value to their income – abolished .
Even with the MAC 's narrow economic focus , a threshold of £25,600 makes little sense .
There are countless full-time jobs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social care and agriculture , for example – that pay little more than the minimum wage , which is about £16,000 in salary terms .
The MAC defends its decision by arguing that salary thresholds mean workers can earn a decent wage .
But it 's an argument that barely holds water .
If the MAC is truly concerned about workers ' incomes , why not recommend raising the minimum wage rather than advocating discrimination against people who do these lower paid jobs ?
Those doing vital but lower paid jobs in social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a route to the UK under the second part of the scheme either , which awards points to people with good qualifications and scientific skills , among other things .
This is the famed points-based system , which would allow entry to people who do n't have a job offer , but who accrue a certain number of points based on criteria such as age , qualifications , english-language ability , and so on .
Such a system would be crude , discriminatory and little better than a salary threshold , disguising a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of categories - but a set that nevertheless means that those most likely to reach the magic number will have the biggest earning potential .
Those people are likely to be disproportionately male , young and hailing from a developed , Western country .
Studies show that points-based systems are inherently racially , gender and age biased .
Such a system would be self-defeating too .
The MAC claims to have reached its conclusions based on what 's `` in the interests of the resident population '' – but it 's hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when their proposals would , in their own admission , reduce GDP , likely have devastating impacts on sectors such as care , agriculture and construction , and threaten the richness of our communities and our supposed British values of inclusion and diversity .
We call on the government to embrace the broader perspective adopted by Scotland and reject the MAC 's proposals .
We need a system that does not gatekeep based on any particular number – whether that 's a salary or an accumulation of points , or some combination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jobs and workers available , one where those coming to the UK are paid fairly for their work and welcomed as human beings .
Migrant Voice works in three regions across the UK to develop the skills and confidence of migrants , empowering them to speak for themselves about their own lives and the issues that affect their communities .
You can follow them on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website @ @ @ @

By Migrant Voice
Yesterday's Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report painted a bleak vision. The group was tasked by the Home Office to look into the salary threshold and a possible future points-based system for work-based immigration. It proposed a post-Brexit system that combines them.
If implemented, such a system would see our communities become financially, socially and culturally poorer, and many of those eager to come and work in the UK and contribute to our society barred.
The Scottish government, on the other hand, has got it right. Their paper on migration, published Monday, describes a system based on salaries and points as "disastrous" and celebrates the contributions of migrants to Scotland's cultural life and communities, as well as its coffers.
There are some chinks of light in the MAC report. The recommendations to lower the general salary threshold and take it even lower for young workers is welcome, as is the plan to create more flexible paths to settlement. It suggests broadening the definition of 'new entrant'. But the rest makes for dismal reading for those who see migrants as human beings rather than commodities.
In the system envisioned by the MAC, those with a job offer could come to the UK if their future salary is at least £25,600. This is a welcome decrease from the widely touted £30,000 threshold, but does not go nearly far enough. We want to see the salary threshold – which crudely reduces a person's value to their income – abolished.
Even with the MAC's narrow economic focus, a threshold of £25,600 makes little sense. There are countless full-time jobs in the UK that need filling – in social care and agriculture, for example – that pay little more than the minimum wage, which is about £16,000 in salary terms.
The MAC defends its decision by arguing that salary thresholds mean workers can earn a decent wage. But it's an argument that barely holds water. If the MAC is truly concerned about workers' incomes, why not recommend raising the minimum wage rather than advocating discrimination against people who do these lower paid jobs?
Those doing vital but lower paid jobs in social care or elsewhere are unlikely to find a route to the UK under the second part of the scheme either, which awards points to people with good qualifications and scientific skills, among other things. This is the famed points-based system, which would allow entry to people who don't have a job offer, but who accrue a certain number of points based on criteria such as age, qualifications, english-language ability, and so on.
Such a system would be crude, discriminatory and little better than a salary threshold, disguising a continued obsession with income under a different set of categories – but a set that nevertheless means that those most likely to reach the magic number will have the biggest earning potential.
Those people are likely to be disproportionately male, young and hailing from a developed, Western country. Studies show that points-based systems are inherently racially, gender and age biased.
Such a system would be self-defeating too. The MAC claims to have reached its conclusions based on what's "in the interests of the resident population" – but it's hard to see how that's the case when their proposals would, in their own admission, reduce GDP, likely have devastating impacts on sectors such as care, agriculture and construction, and threaten the richness of our communities and our supposed British values of inclusion and diversity.
We call on the government to embrace the broader perspective adopted by Scotland and reject the MAC's proposals. We need a system that does not gatekeep based on any particular number – whether that's a salary or an accumulation of points, or some combination of the two – but one guided by the jobs and workers available, one where those coming to the UK are paid fairly for their work and welcomed as human beings.
Migrant Voice works in three regions across the UK to develop the skills and confidence of migrants, empowering them to speak for themselves about their own lives and the issues that affect their communities. You can follow them on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.