Home » Posts tagged 'Boris Johnson' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: Boris Johnson

EU citizens, present and future: what to do to prepare for Brexit

Here is a link to the government’s latest policy document on immigration arrangements after a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. I comment here on some aspects of these arrangements. The first point to make is that if you are an EU citizen who lives here now but you haven’t yet applied for Settled Status you need to do so now. The best way to do this is through a solicitor. You can do it without one, but I don’t advise it. The Home Office has always operated with a mixture of hostility and incompetence. Under Johnson and the new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, the incompetence levels remain the same but the hostility levels are higher. Don’t take any risks. This warning also applies to people coming here after Brexit. The following are my comments and quotes from the document:

  1. Anyone moving to the UK from the EU after Brexit “will be able to move to the UK and live, study, work and access benefits and services as they do now” – until 31 December 2020. If they want to stay longer they will have to apply for a new kind of status, called Temporary Leave to Remain (TLR). If they get TLR it will give them only 36 months.
  2. After January 2021, there will be “a new, Australian-style points-based immigration system”, which the government describes here as a “fairer immigration system that prioritises skills and what people can contribute to the UK, rather than where they came from.” That sounds fair at first, partly because it seems to include all migrants, but it actually limits your chances of staying because the skills you have, and get “points” for, are only the skills that will get you a salary of at least £30,000 a year (according to a government policy announced earlier). If you have skills that earn less than that, you won’t be able to stay.
  3. EU citizens with TLR “will only be required to apply to the new points-based immigration system when their 36 months’ Euro TLR leave expires”, although they can do it earlier. But if they do not “meet the … criteria under the new [points-based] immigration system or otherwise have a right to remain in the UK, they will be expected to leave the UK when their Euro TLR expires. Euro TLR will therefore only provide a temporary stay in the UK for some EU citizens.”

Make no mistake: “they will be expected to leave the UK” is not friendly advice: “EU citizens and their family members who move to the UK after 31 October 2019 will need to have applied for a UK immigration status (whether Euro TLR or under the new, points-based immigration system) by 31 December 2020. Otherwise, they will be here unlawfully and will be liable to enforcement action, detention and removal as an immigration offender.”

  • “enforcement action” = they will take you from your home;
  • “detention” = they will put you in prison;
  • “removal” = they will force you onto a plane and fly you out

 

Here is the government document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-deal-immigration-arrangements-for-eu-citizens-moving-to-the-uk-after-brexit/no-deal-immigration-arrangements-for-eu-citizens-arriving-after-brexit

 

 

 

 

Dangers past, present and future

Nothing new in this story (see link below). They have always spied on and infiltrated the left. Many people will know of the murder of the teacher Blair Peach by a Special Patrol Group officer way back in 1979. I went to Blair Peach’s funeral together with a great crowd who marched to hear speeches and eulogies with the theme “Don’t mourn – mobilise”. (By the way, I thought we should do both.)
The police certainly mobilised. Two young men in front of me marched as mournfully as everybody else, with long hair and dressed in jeans and leather jackets. At a bend in the road, they suddenly slanted off to join their uniformed colleagues (slightly inept, this – blow your own cover, why don’t you?!). Nobody pointed and jeered, which we should have done. But we had a funeral to get on with, which we did.
We should, I suppose, be pleased that this time the police have been forced to pay compensation to the protesters they humiliated. But we should also understand that a Boris Johnson government would have none of that nonsense: there’d be free rein given to the successors of the SPG, the Territorial Support Group, to do as they see fit and the government would ensure that any judge assessing complaints was carefully picked. If you don’t think that could happen, let me point out that, even in the case of Blair Peach, the coroner (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) steered the jury to a verdict of death by misadventure. Carefully picked? You bet.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/26/met-police-in-700k-payout-to-detained-anti-fascist-protesters?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR04FkmmwyISUZWAia3RkZeqURd3VNqKn-WYrjKWS_jlOTMsc26NTIFsxmw

Is no news good news?

I have hardly watched any news since just before Christmas. And you know how it is when you’ve been on holiday and when you come back it takes time to understand that you are back and that you will have to adjust to what is called normality, as opposed to the beach, or the mountains, or the Metropolitan Museum? Well, I’ve been away from the news for two weeks (apart from an accidental, careless sight of the Home Secretary telling the nation that asylum seekers are only genuine if they make their applications in the first safe country they cross on their journey and not bother us here; at that point I fumbled for the off-switch, rushed out of the room, and went back into news-blocking mode. Oh, but before I found the off-switch I caught a glance of a newly inaugurated Brazilian president, and then I was really desperate for the off-switch.

Anyway, yesterday morning I watched the Andrew Marr Show and found I didn’t understand much of what was being said. There was Theresa May repeating the words of her old recordings. When she felt that perhaps they had lost some of the impact they once had she reverted to that real old-time-religion favourite: “On the 29th of March we will leave the European Union, take back control of our borders, control of our laws, and control of our waters with a deal that is in the interests of all the British people”, she sang. Her voice took on a slight Thatcher intonation, and the whole performance, with the accompanying jangly necklace, was obviously designed to bring the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to a premature orgasm. As a matter of fact, I never really did understand what “control of our waters” actually meant, but now, since my news-blocking effort, I don’t understand what any of it means. Still, life goes on and I must try to revise my Brexit vocab.

Then there was Labour Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth, who also repeated a lot of old songs, though without the jangly necklace, about the damage Tory policies were doing. The songs all spoke the truth (and I cheered up a bit) but then he seemed unable to answer any of the really interesting questions, like what Labour’s own policy on social care and the NHS would actually be. From his first words, I think he was saying something like “We’ll look to see what the Tories are offering and then we’ll …” and I felt the urge to block the news again. Then he was asked whether his plan for the NHS would be full public ownership like in the old days. He muttered something about “there will always be a role for the private sector”. This sounded like a kind of partnership – a public-private partnership even. This has usually been code for “private”, both under Tory and Labour governments. These schemes are ones where private calls the shots, makes everything more expensive and rakes in the profit. That’s its purpose. So Jonathan’s words were worrying. Because many of us thought those days would be over under the new politics. Not that we want to go back to the old days, far from it. We thought we would go forward to a democratically accountable public ownership, in which workers and users of services would call the shots. That was never the case in the old days. The old nationalised industries and public services were run by more or less the same people who ran them when they were private. And they ran them on the same lines. At the end of the day they were supposed to make a profit, like their capitalist predecessors. And they mostly did.

It’s time to tell a story. Long years ago, when Sir Keith Joseph was Education Secretary, I interviewed him for an audio magazine for the blind. We touched on the private versus public question. He agreed that publicly owned outfits make a profit: “Oh, yes, they make a profit, of course, but – well, look at that splendid jumper you’re wearing. I don’t know where you got it, where did you buy it?”

“I don’t remember,” I replied nervously. “Marks & Spencer’s probably.”

“Very well, then. What do you want us to do? Nationalise Marks and Spencer’s? And what would happen then? They’d say, ‘You can’t have the colour you want – we’ll choose it for you; you can’t have the pattern you want – we’ll choose it for you; you can’t have the style you want – we’ll choose it for you.’ Is that want you want?”

I can’t remember my answer, but anyway he slowly calmed down. Of course, he wasn’t really worried about my rights, or customer satisfaction, or the service provided. His real concern was that in a publicly owned operation the profits would go to the wrong people: instead of going into the pockets and coffers of his friends they would go to the state, where they might be spent on improving the service. Of course, in “the old days” governments often spent the money on things that, if we’d been asked, we would have vetoed. But we weren’t asked. That’s why now, after Corbyn’s election, the eyes of some of us lit up when we heard the words “democratically accountable” attached to the words “public ownership”. And that’s why my eyes glazed over and I was tempted to head for the news-blocker when Ashworth mentioned “a role for the private sector”. But I thought, No, I’ve closed that door behind me. I must now find my way back to being a responsible citizen. It’s difficult though. There aren’t that many role models.

The other thing I noticed yesterday was that America is in lockdown. That sounds uncomfortable. Like when, during the dockers’ strike in the 1970s the Heath government said they would “sequestrate” the union’s funds. “By heck,” said union leader Hugh Scanlon, “We’re going to be sequestrated – that sounds painful!” But Trump clearly doesn’t understand how workers, even those in government departments, feel when they’re sent home or have to work without pay. “They’re 100% behind me,” declared Trump. Yes, and hopefully they’re all armed to the teeth!

 

No answers, please – just bring on the clowns

An exchange between Emily Thornberry and Boris Johnson today in parliament slowly degenerated into yah-boo childishness. She shouldn’t let him draw her into his antics. Speaker John Bercow, after some incoherent yelling from Johnson, then joined in the circus: “I cannot believe the right honourable gentleman behaved in this way in his schooldays – or perhaps he did, which may explain a lot now.” He then told Thornberry off for calling the foreign secretary “Boris”.

Meanwhile, anyone in the real world who wanted answers to serious questions could be forgiven for despairing: the Foreign Office team got away with defending the rule of law in Spain (by which they meant the police beating up voters and wrecking polling booths) and refusing to say they would oppose Sudan joining the Commonwealth on the grounds of that country’s human rights abuses: any decision, apparently, would be up to the other Commonwealth members. But as many of them are human rights abusers themselves, we’d better not hold our breaths.

So at the beginning of this afternoon I am in favour of closing down our useless parliament and dismembering the “Commonwealth”. As for the EU, don’t ask. In any case it got lost amid the Johnson-Thornberry double act.

Conflicting objectives?

Alan Johnson, my local MP, who ran Labour’s Remain campaign, blames Jeremy Corbyn for the Brexit vote. He says that Jeremy, or his “office”, “worked against the rest of the Party”, had “conflicting objectives” and had “undermined” the campaign. He offers no evidence. I replied on the Hull Daily Mail’s website today as follows:

“It would be useful to hear some analysis of the way the media marginalised the Labour case for staying. Jeremy was ignored by the mainstream media most of the time, as was Alan Johnson. Just the odd clip or specific comment, almost never a whole speech or extended quotes from their speeches. While the Boris Johnson/Gove v. Cameron show got full coverage, as did Farage’s every move. So the impression was that Labour wasn’t saying much, or was ‘lacklustre’. As for Jeremy’s office ‘working against the rest of the Party’, having ‘conflicting objectives’ and seeking to ‘undermine’ the campaign, you need to give examples, Alan, and say how, why and who. The consequences of just making and repeating accusations are disastrous. Especially when they make no sense.”

Here’s the original article:

http://www.heytoday.co.uk/local-news/hull-west-and-hessle-mp-slams-jeremy-corbyn-after-brexit-vote/#comments

On the eve of a referendum …

Several friends have told me that they are voting Remain in the EU referendum – but with a heavy heart.

I’m voting Remain too, in spite of France tear-gassing protesting workers who are resisting their government’s, and the EU’s, plans to ditch their rights (Jeremy, don’t imagine the EU is on your side here) and tear-gassing (again by France) of refugees in Calais (ditto, Jeremy) and its refusal to allow aid through to Calais. I’m voting Remain because I don’t want Johnsonism and Goveism to have the whip hand in government and I also want to save Jeremy from the Blairites and the assorted Gawd-knows-whatites waiting to get rid of him if there’s a No vote. It’s not the right time to vote Leave.

If we get a Labour government committed to rolling back NHS privatisation, rejecting TTIP, bringing the rail network and the energy companies into public ownership, restoring the trade union rights that have been eroded since Thatcher and getting rid, amongst other noxious things, of zero-hour contracts, that would be several major steps forward. A Corbyn-led government could do that, and it could reaffirm the principles of the Refugee Convention rather than bolster the profits of the tear-gas manufacturers. The EU would certainly oppose such a Labour programme, since much of it would break EU rules, laws and protocols. Then we could oppose the EU, and then, if change proves impossible, vote to leave – and defend policies worth defending.

Will any of that happen?

Don’t know.

But if we vote Leave now, we are playing into the hands of the Right, including the very nasty Right.

Defending workers’ rights against the EU

A major part, perhaps the major part, of Jeremy Corbyn’s argument for remaining in the EU is that we will be able to defend workers’ rights across Europe if we stay in. We enjoy many of them, his argument runs, thanks to the EU and we can defend and maintain them more effectively from inside the club than from outside.

Whether we enjoy them “thanks to the EU” is debatable. But one thing is not. The French Socialist Party (SP) government is busy attacking workers’ rights in France like there’s no tomorrow. And the unions, through strikes and demonstrations, and protest meetings, are opposing the changes. According to today’s Observer, the argument

“boils down to whether it should be as easy in France for employers to sack workers, cut their pay and arbitrarily change their working conditions as it is in post-Thatcher, post-BHS Britain.”

A protest meeting of the Left took place today. One of the participants spoke of the “docility” and “treachery” of SP Members of Parliament and called President Hollande’s government “a government of the right”.

But what was interesting in terms of Jeremy Corbyn’s argument was the claim by Danielle Simmonet from the Parti de Gauche (Party of the Left). She argued that the proposed law was not just a proposal by the French government. It was concocted by  the government, the bosses – and the European Union. The proposed law is a “demand” of Brussels, she said, and a “deal” made with the European Union institutions themselves. So how to break this deal? Danielle is clear: “To fight the [proposed] law we need a general rebellion … we need to [be] an insubordinate people.”

So, if we remain, it looks as if our rights will not be protected by the EU. Instead we will have the EU institutions themselves to contend with. Jeremy Corbyn paints too rosy a picture of workers’ rights in the EU. Judging by the current events in France, maintaining and defending them if we vote Remain will take just as much effort and commitment as defending them against Boris Johnson and Michael Gove: it won’t just be a matter of sending Hilary Benn in to the Council of Ministers. We will, beyond that (and perhaps instead of that), have to become “an insubordinate people”.

We can, of course, do that – In or Out.

Here’s the Libération article: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/06/12/loi-travail-valls-on-organise-ton-pot-de-depart-dans-la-rue_1458935

And the Observer article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/04/observer-france-labour-unrest?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Referendum blues, and the dangers of wishful thinking

On Question Time last night, Owen Jones raised the question of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and its threat to the NHS remaining in public ownership. He claimed that the UK now has an exemption from TTIP when it comes to the NHS. He said the following:

“Because people protested and campaigned here and all over Europe we not only got an exemption for the NHS (forced upon this government against their will) but because people protested and campaigned all over Europe TTIP lies in ruins. Don’t let anyone say we can’t change the European Union.”

I don’t think we’ve got an exemption and I don’t think TTIP lies in ruins. The latest information I can find after a quick search is from the Daily Mirror and The Guardian of 19 May, where a No. 10 spokesperson is quoted as saying that the government would accept the Commons amendment to the Queen’s speech (put by Peter Lilley (Tory) and Paula Sherriff (Labour), and supported, I think, by the SNP), which proposed that the Commons should

“respectfully regret that a Bill to protect the National Health Service from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was not included in the Gracious Speech.”

I understand from this that getting an exemption would involve an Act of Parliament, so I don’t see how Owen Jones can say we’ve got an exemption now. I’d have thought it would mean some more jiggery-pokery at EU Central too.

At my Constituency Labour Party meeting last month, when I asked a question about whether TTIP was a threat to the public ownership of the NHS, Peter Prescott (arguing for a Remain vote), agreed that it was – but claimed that TTIP would have to be agreed to by all 28 members of the EU and that therefore we would have a say at that stage, and that he couldn’t see France, either, agreeing to this aspect of TTIP under a Socialist Party government. He didn’t mention an exemption. (He didn’t mention, either, that President Hollande is apparently the most unpopular president of France since records began, so who knows whether there will be a Socialist Party government of France when TTIP gets to that stage?)

I’m not clear what “accepting the amendment” means anyway, particularly as the said No. 10 spokesperson seemed a bit dismissive of it: “As we’ve said all along,” he said, “there is no threat to the NHS from TTIP. So if this amendment is selected, we’ll accept it.” So, as I said, I don’t believe we’ve got an exemption and Owen Jones’s claim is, at best, wishful thinking.

I could vote either way in the referendum: there are lots of reasons why I’d like to see us out of this club. I hate what the EU and the European Bank did to Greece (they boasted they’d given Tspiras “a mental waterboarding”), I find the claim that the EU will make it easier to defend workers’ rights (also cited by Jones) more than questionable in the week after the French “socialist” government tear-gassed workers protesting against its proposed laws, which are set to tear up their rights, I hate the EU agreement with Turkey to send Syrians (who are the most vulnerable ones) back to Syria. (This means that every time EU bureaucrats or politicians take a breath they are breaking the Refugee Convention.)

But I’m thinking of voting Remain. Part of that has always been because of the racist arguments of a substantial part of the Leave campaign. But (and this is not unconnected with that reason) a successful Leave vote would also likely result in Boris Johnson and Michael Gove running the government, even more enthusiastic in “punishing the poor”, as Ken Loach described the Tories last week, than even Cameron and Osborne. There is no worse prospect, we don’t need it and we don’t deserve it. So I’m inclining at the moment (and this isn’t set in stone) to adopt Paul Mason’s approach: Get out, but not yet. The time to leave would be when a Labour government is prevented by the EU from implementing its programme (e.g. defending the NHS, bringing back the rail network into public ownership) and then, when it becomes obvious we can’t change the EU, calls another referendum. Then we could leave, heads held high, Corbyn intact.

And that’s another thing: on 23 June, a Leave vote would probably mean, not only the rise of Johnson and Gove, but the end of Jeremy Corbyn. Labour MPs would call for a new leadership election before you could say “plot”, and he would be gone.

And then I would retire from politics!

EU 1: Thinking aloud about some of the questions: workers’ rights

I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote in the EU referendum. If I vote to leave I will be joining a ramshackle bunch of characters including Michael Gove, Nigel Farage and George Galloway. Shouting with them from the sidelines, as Andrew Raunsley points out in today’s Observer (see link (1) below), are Marine le Pen and Vladimir Putin. And if the No camp wins we might even end up with Boris Johnson as prime minister.

All that is nearly enough to send me into the Yes camp!

But I’m also horrified by the supporters of continued membership who, one way or another, have got us where we are today. Raunsley’s list includes

“the chancellor, foreign secretary and home secretary, most of the rest of the cabinet, the great majority of senior figures from the opposition parties, the bulk of big business and the trade unions, the governor of the Bank of England, the president of the United States and the leader of every European country that anyone might conceivably have heard of.”

That’s almost enough to send me into the No camp!

However, it’s not about lists of clowns, bankers, politicians, or other Very Important People. It is, as Tony Benn always insisted, about “the issues”. Take, for instance, the question of workers’ rights. Would it be better for workers’ rights if we stayed in or if we left?

Let me suggest one argument for staying in. Many unions are saying that workers’ rights will be better protected if we stay in. But I notice the biggest French union, the CGT, says that the latest “reforms” of the Code du Travail announced by the French government will take France back to the 19th century (see link (2) below). And this in a France firmly entrenched in the EU. This game of “reforms” is the game all governments want to play, and no country’s workers are safe, and this suggests that there are no automatic guarantees of workers’ rights in the EU and that whether we’re in or out we’ll have to defend the rights we fought for. M. Martinez is calling on French trade unionists to do that now in France. So the argument for staying in to protect workers’ rights doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong one.

Unless, of course, we add M. Martinez’s element of workers taking action to defend their rights. Then, if we stayed in, it would be easier to join them and any others across the EU doing the same. Wouldn’t Brexit leave British workers weaker against Cameron, and other workers in Europe weaker against their own governments? I think solidarity is better than isolation. And perhaps solidarity across the EU could change it to the advantage of workers beyond the wildest dreams that Cameron has of changing it to the advantage of his rich, arrogant, corporate buddies.

That’s my first thought, anyway. More to come as the campaigning goes on.

 

(1) Andrew Raunsley’s article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/eu-refendum-tory-party-uk-at-stake

(2) Article in Libération: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/02/19/martinez-le-nouveau-code-du-travail-un-retour-au-xixe-siecle_1434633