UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Whirlwind**

Herzlos wrote:
I'm largely ignorant about it; what's wrong with european arrest warrants?

Do we want to return to the days of criminals moving to Spain and being untouchable?

Nothing really. It just means that if a criminal potters off to another European Country and that another wants them for a criminal investigation then they can issue a European Arrest warrant and they can't hide anywhere in Europe. Instead the UK (and EU) will have to sort out an extradition process between them which is more costly and bureaucratic. In addition there is always the chance that as we are not aligned with the ECJ that the person in question may then take the issue to the ECJ if our rules are misaligned. If the ECJ find that for whatever reason a decision might not be made in line the ECHR then the courts may refuse that extradition. That potentially is years of legal wrangling if it is over small technical points.

**Kilkrazy**

There have been some niggles and complaints with the EAW.

As with much else about leaving the EU, the best answer is to reform it (which already has been done once) than to simply dump it. At any rate, Europe needs some Europe wide system of extradition in the modern age of international mobility.

Interpol is not an EU institution and the UK will remain a member after Brexit.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

Whirlwind wrote:

But not impossible? Also if we assume it was a targeted attack as inferred are we saying that an 18 year old, not far out of training was the one actually giving the orders and deciding. Although my background is sketchy on the actual event, you state that the army had been threatening to kill him, not the individual. That in itself would imply that taking this person for prosecution is actually not really the person you want for justice, does it not? If a soldier is trained to follow the orders of their commanding officer then who should be held responsible the person that pulled the trigger or the person that gave the order.

Well of course not impossible , but even if the incident was an accident he would still be found guilty of negligence for having the gun loaded, safety off and then applying 9lbs of pressure to the trigger.

So following orders is now a legitimate excuse to kill an innocent man walking to a football match? What about Bloody Sunday, should those soldiers be allowed to get away with it for following orders?

There was a wider shoot to kill policy at the time but this particular case wasn't coming from a high up this was threats targeted at a man because he was known to be a catholic nationalist (who in the area were regularly threatened) and he crossed that checkpoint twice a day to get too work which made him known to the soldiers and became a target to vent their anger. This solider may just been going along with his mates and maybe one of his superiors told him to fire but he pulled the trigger so he must be held responsible! We've seen the 'following orders' excuse used throughout history and it very rarely holds up in peoples minds.

A few weeks a go everyone rightly criticised DNLT for suggesting the army or ex troops should be acting as a police force because it would result in unnecessary deaths and people would start becoming a law onto their own, well that's what happened in Ireland and I'm sure if this had happened in England people would agree its not right for the trooper to get away with it.

So if he is found innocent then you would be happy that this is justice?

I personally believe the man to be guilty and actually believe he intentionally killed Aidan, however hes being charged with manslaughter due to negligence which he will almost certainly be found guilty of as I mentioned above.

I'd be upset if he was found not guilty, I'd be happen though at the precedent it set that there is a chance of justice and prosecutions for the many incidents of the murder of innocents.
Bloody Sunday
The Ballymurphy Massacre
Springhill Massacre
Dublin and Monaghen bombings
The rest of the Glenanne gang killings (74 of their killings are believed to have involved the security forces)
Some of the events surrounding the Shankill butchers.
Along with multiple other smaller scale events

Doesn't the article indicate that it is the Public Prosecution Service taking forward the case. That would mean a trial by Jury, it's not a military case being taken forward.

If he's trailed over here the PPS can issue a certificate to have it a no jury trial and in a case like this that's basically a necessity due to the bias that would be in a jury.

**Herzlos**

Whirlwind wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
I'm largely ignorant about it; what's wrong with european arrest warrants?

Do we want to return to the days of criminals moving to Spain and being untouchable?

Nothing really. It just means that if a criminal potters off to another European Country and that another wants them for a criminal investigation then they can issue a European Arrest warrant and they can't hide anywhere in Europe. Instead the UK (and EU) will have to sort out an extradition process between them which is more costly and bureaucratic. In addition there is always the chance that as we are not aligned with the ECJ that the person in question may then take the issue to the ECJ if our rules are misaligned. If the ECJ find that for whatever reason a decision might not be made in line the ECHR then the courts may refuse that extradition. That potentially is years of legal wrangling if it is over small technical points.

Thanks. So basically it's just cutting our nose off to spite our face, and making everything more time consuming and expensive (the Brexit way)?

**Whirlwind**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

Well of course not impossible , but even if the incident was an accident he would still be found guilty of negligence for having the gun loaded, safety off and then applying 9lbs of pressure to the trigger.

That largely depends on the circumstances of the day. *If* it was standard practice to keep guns loaded and safety's off at that checkpoint then these first two are irrelevant because they were acting along the standard practice allowed for by the senior officer. At that point the only piece of negligence is the 'slip'. Looking into this a bit more he was shot in the back (rather than back of the head) from one of three bullets the forensics indicated ricocheted of the ground about 2m behind him. The quotation of "so remote as to be virtually disregarded" actually relates to the two points in that both for the gun to slip and the bullets to ricochet was highly unlikely. That they were behind him from 300m away would indicate that the gun wasn't pointed at the person directly. A slip could cause this, however I can also imagine that anyone passing through the gates were tracked in front or behind of the person which makes then any slip more likely to result in bullets ricocheting from nearby. A more insidious possibility and one which I could accept as a manslaughter charge was where the bullets were fired deliberately to spook the person and they bounced into his back. However reviewing previous statements it is a bit misleading to say this person directly shot the person because that isn't what happened.

So following orders is now a legitimate excuse to kill an innocent man walking to a football match? What about Bloody Sunday, should those soldiers be allowed to get away with it for following orders?

I have sympathy with the soldiers in this regards. They are trained to act on orders not mull over the details and make an individual decision. People tend to die when that happens. It is a good reason why soldiers shouldn't be acting as the Police (who have a different directive). If your commanding officer says shoot, then they do, no questions asked. They don't have the following conversation

CO - "Shoot him!"
Solider - "Why sir, I can't see anything wrong with him"
CO - "He has a bomb on him"
Soldier - "I see nothing, what is the evidence for this bomb"
CO - "FFS, I got a call from MI6, they didn't give me the details"
Soldier - "But if they get it wrong, I might be prosecute....." *BOOOOOOOM*
CO (as multiple body parts fly over their heads) - "Are these body parts evidence enough for you?"

I have no sympathy if you are solider working in a concentration camp where there is consideration time for your actions. However I think it is unreasonable to blame the soldier when they are acting as they have trained to be. In that case you need to question why and if those orders were given.

There was a wider shoot to kill policy at the time but this particular case wasn't coming from a high up this was threats targeted at a man because he was known to be a catholic nationalist (who in the area were regularly threatened) and he crossed that checkpoint twice a day to get too work which made him known to the soldiers and became a target to vent their anger.

Do you have evidence for this statement that they shot the person to vent their anger at …[please insert why]

This solider may just been going along with his mates and maybe one of his superiors told him to fire but he pulled the trigger so he must be held responsible! We've seen the 'following orders' excuse used throughout history and it very rarely holds up in peoples minds.

This effectively amounts to "someone must be blamed". I tend not to side on this type of rhetoric because it tends to mean that people ignore the reasons behind the incident and can compartmentalize it behind a veil of "it was *all* someone else's fault". Hillsborough is another example of where that mentality is pervading society.

I personally believe the man to be guilty and actually believe he intentionally killed Aidan, however hes being charged with manslaughter due to negligence which he will almost certainly be found guilty of as I mentioned above.

So basically your view of justice is that he is guilty or murder without having all the facts and information to hand and a trial by jury...that really isn't justice at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

Thanks. So basically it's just cutting our nose off to spite our face, and making everything more time consuming and expensive (the Brexit way)?

Pretty much, it's not perfect but better than the alternative. The UK Government doesn't actually want to lose it and want to stay part of it. But again they are blinded by wanting to leave the ECJ. It's another example of trying to cherry pick that they were warned about but didn't want to see that the two areas were inseparable.

**Kilkrazy**

I think the discussion about the trial of the soldier is a digression.

He is going on trial. Evidence will be presented and the jury will deliver a verdict based on that.

We're completely second-guessing the process, and whatever we think about it, the verdict will be the jury's.

**Da krimson barun**

If the man who shot McAnspie is innocent then why did a chunk of him go missing, never to be seen again? The part containing the information on the trajectory?
Why was the soldiers finger on the trigger in the first place? This same thing had happened before on the border. Was trigger discipline not taught in the BA at the time?
Why did he excert 9lb's of pressure on his trigger pointing a loaded weapon at a civilian?
A civilian who was constantly harrased and threatened? Who was also a SF election worker?

So to sum it up, A British soldier pointed a loaded weapon in the direction of a Shinner and accidentally put a bullet in him. The piece of him containing the exit wound went missing. Why the piece of rib cage was removed without his family's knowledge is a complete mystery with no record kept. The Irish government was unwilling to release even a censored version of the report into the incident.
I haven't had my suspension of disbelief tested so much since sharknado.

**reds8n**

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1009400497240006657

UK PM May says pictures of children "being held in what appear to be cages" are "deeply disturbing,” and the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" policy is "wrong" and she "doesn't agree with it."

.... wonder if the visit will still happen ?

meanwhile

Spoiler:

.. so Davis has threatened to resign more often than the number of times he's met his counterpart this year ?

Spoiler:

.. prior knowledge not necessary.

*wing it joke*

**gianlucafiorentini123**

Whirlwind wrote:

That largely depends on the circumstances of the day. *If* it was standard practice to keep guns loaded and safety's off at that checkpoint then these first two are irrelevant because they were acting along the standard practice allowed for by the senior officer. At that point the only piece of negligence is the 'slip'. Looking into this a bit more he was shot in the back (rather than back of the head) from one of three bullets the forensics indicated ricocheted of the ground about 2m behind him. The quotation of "so remote as to be virtually disregarded" actually relates to the two points in that both for the gun to slip and the bullets to ricochet was highly unlikely. That they were behind him from 300m away would indicate that the gun wasn't pointed at the person directly. A slip could cause this, however I can also imagine that anyone passing through the gates were tracked in front or behind of the person which makes then any slip more likely to result in bullets ricocheting from nearby. A more insidious possibility and one which I could accept as a manslaughter charge was where the bullets were fired deliberately to spook the person and they bounced into his back. However reviewing previous statements it is a bit misleading to say this person directly shot the person because that isn't what happened.

While I cant be 100% sure I'd be pretty confident that when moving a gun the safety would at least be on or else there'd be a lot more incidents of troops shooting each other, it was also found that the gun was mounted on a pivot that meant there was no reason for it to be moved at all.

The notion of the slip is also disputed the enquiry has already found that a 'firm grip' was required for the trigger to be activated, the soldiers reasons for the slip was wet hands from cleaning the gun even though the gun had been cleaned half an hour previously by a maintenance party, so either he was cleaning a gun that had just been cleaned or it was just something thought up after the act.

How would them being 300m behind mean they weren't aiming the gun at him? Surely at this increased distance the chance of a slip and then ricocheting up and killing Aidan would be decreased.

Your second point of them tracking him through, if tracking him why would they be moving the gun while doing so?

You can't say that the bullets weren't directly aimed at him, as you have as much evidence for saying that as I do for saying they were.

I have sympathy with the soldiers in this regards. They are trained to act on orders not mull over the details and make an individual decision. People tend to die when that happens. It is a good reason why soldiers shouldn't be acting as the Police (who have a different directive). If your commanding officer says shoot, then they do, no questions asked. They don't have the following conversation

CO - "Shoot him!"
Solider - "Why sir, I can't see anything wrong with him"
CO - "He has a bomb on him"
Soldier - "I see nothing, what is the evidence for this bomb"
CO - "FFS, I got a call from MI6, they didn't give me the details"
Soldier - "But if they get it wrong, I might be prosecute....." *BOOOOOOOM*
CO (as multiple body parts fly over their heads) - "Are these body parts evidence enough for you?"

I have no sympathy if you are solider working in a concentration camp where there is consideration time for your actions. However I think it is unreasonable to blame the soldier when they are acting as they have trained to be. In that case you need to question why and if those orders were given.

He was 300m away walking away, what threat was he posing to them. There was no call from MI6 though as he wasn't a member of the IRA he was an innocent man killed for no good reason.

There was a wider shoot to kill policy at the time but this particular case wasn't coming from a high up this was threats targeted at a man because he was known to be a catholic nationalist (who in the area were regularly threatened) and he crossed that checkpoint twice a day to get too work which made him known to the soldiers and became a target to vent their anger.

They threatened him daily to such an extent that he had to be accompanied by a family member as much as possible when near that checkpoint because they were scared of what might happen, his father was told ''I've a bullet in this gun for your son Aidan.''
Troops asked the family after the incident if they'd seen Aidan recently. If this doesn't show there was something malicious going on I don't know what will.

It's no secret either that there were soldiers who hated the Irish and saw them as the enemy.

This effectively amounts to "someone must be blamed". I tend not to side on this type of rhetoric because it tends to mean that people ignore the reasons behind the incident and can compartmentalize it behind a veil of "it was *all* someone else's fault". Hillsborough is another example of where that mentality is pervading society.

People know why it happened, it was because he was an Irish nationalist and was therefore seen as the enemy. Of course someone should be blamed a man died after bullets were fired in his direction after over a year of threats to kill him were made.

So basically your view of justice is that he is guilty or murder without having all the facts and information to hand and a trial by jury...that really isn't justice at all.

No that's not what I said. I said I believed him to be guilty but that there was finally a chance for justice because there'll finally be a real investigation and a day in court will be had. Is it not justice that after years someone will be in court for killing a man? Will you be arguing with those calling for justice for grenfell because they want someone to end up in court?

**Herzlos**

Unless I'm missing something, you track someone by moving a gun to have them roughly in-sight. That the gun was loaded is a given - it'd be useless otherwise. Safety off could be protocol or a mess up. Slipping and accidentally discharging is possible.

If he'd been threatened for a year, why was he shot that day, in such an obvious way?

He shouldn't have died and a trial should be carried out to assess the evidence, but it's not as open and shut as you claim.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

Herzlos wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, you track someone by moving a gun to have them roughly in-sight. That the gun was loaded is a given - it'd be useless otherwise. Safety off could be protocol or a mess up. Slipping and accidentally discharging is possible.

If he'd been threatened for a year, why was he shot that day, in such an obvious way?

He shouldn't have died and a trial should be carried out to assess the evidence, but it's not as open and shut as you claim.

Yes but according to the solider it wasn't tracking him as it slipped from his hands meaning he was moving the gun in his hands even though the gun did not require being moved by hand at all.

In the BBC article you can see the towers where the solider was situated look how small the windows are, the machine gun was apparently dropped the soldiers hand then wrapped round the grip and applied 9 lbs of pressure to the trigger the bullets not only made it out of that small hole but then hit the ground just behind a target they weren't tracking ricocheting up and accidentally killed him, they then thought it'd be a good idea to taunt the family at a later stage.

OR

They had previously threatened to kill a man and eventually they acted on it and missed there target slightly but the bullets ricocheted and killed him. In all honesty which seems the most likely?

And as to why they would be so obvious in shooting him, if you have to ask that question you really must not know much about the Troubles as obviously shooting at innocent people for no good reason happened plenty.

**Herzlos**

That's for a judge/jury to decide.

I'll be honest, I've never heard of this incident and only seen your reports on it. Maybe there's solid evidence, but it sounds as if there's plenty of room for interpretation.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

It won't help a key piece of evidence was disposed of, it's all part of a wider problem the soldiers did kill innocent people the majority of the time and the seeming belief by many that it was ok to do so simply because of the persons religion or political view

**Kilkrazy**

There are many murky incidents in the history of the Troubles, and it's right that they should be investigated and, if there is enough suspicion and evidence, put on trial.

That said, I believe we have made a long diversion about one specific case, so we should now await the trial result.

**Whirlwind**

Herzlos wrote:
That's for a judge/jury to decide.

I'll be honest, I've never heard of this incident and only seen your reports on it. Maybe there's solid evidence, but it sounds as if there's plenty of room for interpretation.

This is really the original point I was concerned with. The quoted statement was

And finally after 30 years the family have a chance at justice, especially good to hear after Teresa May twice made false statements about legacy issues.

And that because one person assumes they are guilty implied that only justice would be served if found guilty. Which isn't justice at all.

----------------------

In other news the Remainer 'rebels' have backed down again over a meanignless statement. They really do like putting party before the Country despite all their bluster. And for what, that they will be allowed to table debates as they are allowed to anyway. The idea that they wanted a meaningful debate on the issue has disappeared out the window (again).

**r_squared**

When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

r_squared wrote:
When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.

Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?

Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.

http://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2018/05/15/news/george-hamilton-psni-chief-constable-says-theresa-may-is-wrong-about-legacy-cases-1329992/content.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44054424

**Kilkrazy**

Justice isn't about quid pro quo, or the other side's worse so we're fine.

Another piece of justice came out today, the revelation that between 1988 and 2001 an NHS hospital in Gosport, Hampshire killed at least 450 people with overdoses of opioid drugs like morphine.

The scandal isn't only the death toll, it's the fact that suspicions, allegations and whistle-blowing were denied and obfuscated by a variety of vested interests who preferred to protect the hospital establishment rather than properly investigate what had happened.

**BaronIveagh**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Justice isn't about quid pro quo, or the other side's worse so we're fine.

Another piece of justice came out today, the revelation that between 1988 and 2001 an NHS hospital in Gosport, Hampshire killed at least 450 people with overdoses of opioid drugs like morphine.

The scandal isn't only the death toll, it's the fact that suspicions, allegations and whistle-blowing were denied and obfuscated by a variety of vested interests who preferred to protect the hospital establishment rather than properly investigate what had happened.

You find THAT shocking? Wait till you see how often it happens in Nursing Homes.

**r_squared**

gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.

Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?

Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.

http://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2018/05/15/news/george-hamilton-psni-chief-constable-says-theresa-may-is-wrong-about-legacy-cases-1329992/content.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44054424

I didn't say come forward, I said co-operate. Republican's have never co-operated in investigations to bring justice to the families of victims such as the Omagh bombing where shoppers and children were murdered in cold blood. When I start to see progress here, then I may change my views on the idea of "justice" in Northern Ireland.

But thanks for bringing political violence and murder into the politics thread.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

r_squared wrote:
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
When the IRA and other republican groups and members of the community start to cooperate into the investigations of the many murders committed by their members, then I think there will be a sense that justice is being sought in Northern Ireland.

Don't see many security force members coming forward about the crimes they committed? Are you not calling for loyalists to come forward either seeing as they killed more civilians than republicans actually did?

Republicans are being investigated over issues relating to the troubles (despite the lies May is pushing), it's just the army are getting a slightly disproportionate amount of investigations due to no one have been convicted for them at the time unlike those relating to paramilitaries.

http://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2018/05/15/news/george-hamilton-psni-chief-constable-says-theresa-may-is-wrong-about-legacy-cases-1329992/content.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44054424

I didn't say come forward, I said co-operate. Republican's have never co-operated in investigations to bring justice to the families of victims such as the Omagh bombing where shoppers and children were murdered in cold blood. When I start to see progress here, then I may change my views on the idea of "justice" in Northern Ireland.

But thanks for bringing political violence and murder into the politics thread.

So republicans should co-operate but no one else? Your idea of justice would appear to be republicans first then everyone else, paramilitaries are seen as criminals so surely the army who were there to protect people should be held to a higher moral standard. My problems with the issue stems from this belief that because these men wore a uniform they should be exempt or put to the end of the queue for inquires.

The Omagh bomb was carried out by a sub sect within a sub sect of republicanism that has cut ties with the main branches, so people are unlikely t come forward because the only ones who know anything are the ones who actually planted the bombs.

It's politically related and affects the UK so why shouldn't it be brought up in the UK politics thread, legacy issues were brought up a few weeks a go on this thread.

**Herzlos**

Everyone should be held to account for any wrong-doings on both sides.

**gianlucafiorentini123**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Justice isn't about quid pro quo, or the other side's worse so we're fine.

Another piece of justice came out today, the revelation that between 1988 and 2001 an NHS hospital in Gosport, Hampshire killed at least 450 people with overdoses of opioid drugs like morphine.

The scandal isn't only the death toll, it's the fact that suspicions, allegations and whistle-blowing were denied and obfuscated by a variety of vested interests who preferred to protect the hospital establishment rather than properly investigate what had happened.

You find THAT shocking? Wait till you see how often it happens in Nursing Homes.

We had a nursing home revelation over here last week, it was actually terrifying what people can just let happen by sheer incompetence.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/horrific-report-on-northern-ireland-care-home-residents-endured-sex-assaults-and-spent-last-moments-of-their-lives-in-appalling-circumstances-at-dunmurry-manor-37005517.html

**reds8n**

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/06/21/shadow-of-windrush-as-home-office-unveils-immigration-app-fo

The application process for EU citizens to regularise their UK immigration status after Brexit was unveiled today in more-or-less what'll be its final form. It's basically what we reported it would be back in March – a commendably simple website biased towards granting permission, with the Home Office doing most of the work to prove someone's residence. They'll do this by checking Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) databases for tax or welfare payments.

The scheme will be open to any EU citizen who is in the UK between now and the end of the transition period on December 31st 2020. It is also expected to include EEA citizens from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but that hasn't quite been signed off yet. It will include the close relations of EU citizens as well – their children, parents, grandparents and spouses.

At the point of application, the app will check records to see if you have been here for five years. If you have, you get settled status. If it's been less time – even if you arrived on December 29th 2020 – you get pre-settled status. Once you can show you have been here for five years, that upgrades to settled status.

The cost of the application is £65, which is set at roughly the cost of a passport. For kids it's half that. For people who already have residence it's free.

The app is slightly more complicated that I wrote in that March piece, but it remains commendably short and simple. At the start you enter your name, date of birth, and some kind of proof of identity, like a passport or European ID card number - and then take a selfie so this can be compared with the official document. There's an app for this bit which scans your passport, but it seems the Home Office have only managed to get it to work with Android and are having difficulties getting it authorised with Apple.

Then you need to show how long you've been resident. The quickest way to do this will be uploading a national insurance number. That'll then be used to check HMRC and DWP databases. The Home Office is insisting it won't care about or keep any of your personal tax information, it's just using it as a proxy for residence. This will then scan your records, see how long you've been in the UK, and give you either settled or pre-settled status.

If you want to dodge the national insurance number route - for instance if you haven't been working or claiming benefit - or if the system is saying you've been in the UK for less time than you really have been, you can start uploading documents.

The Home Office's preferred documents are things like bank statements, employer letters, P60s, care home letters or student finance letters. But they'll also accept lots of other types of proof, like payslips, invoices, utility bills, GPs, domestic bills or even a travel ticket to the UK. This second category of non-preferred document would require more uploads than the first.

The third and final part of the app will ask about criminal records, but only those with serious convictions who could pose a threat to the public – defined to the European legal standard – would be caught out by this.

When something doesn't work, the application is spat out to a case worker. But unlike most experiences with case workers, this time they are being instructed by the Home Office to help people pass. The expectation is that nearly everyone will.

The app is intended to start rolling out later this year and to be available to everyone by Brexit Day in March next year. It'll stay online until June 30th 2021.

So far, so good. It is not as good as free movement, of course, despite the promises made by government, because while you are in pre-settled status you can only leave the UK for six months in any one year. Your ability to come and go is restricted. But it is decent, and there's a pleasant surprise to seeing the Home Office create a system designed to pass applicants rather than make their life a misery. It is also proof of concept for a humane immigration model which can be raised by migrant rights in future as a gold standard for how things should be done.

But. There is a sense of over-confidence in the Home Office plans. They insist they are up to the logistical challenge of handling 3.7 million applications in a few years (roughly 5,000 a day, every day) because they do seven million passports and three million visas a year. But these are systems they already know well and which have been chugging along for years. The app is a completely new IT system, which has to be up and running quickly. The better comparisons are the infamous NHS IT system or universal credit, both of which were disasters.

The most obvious risk is a spike in demand. Some of this you can plan for – there will be spikes at the start and the end of the period, for instance. But there may also be spikes you did not see coming, perhaps because of some scare story on social media or other unforeseen problem. Can it handle that?

System resilience analysts often talk about the double-crisis: a system which can handle one problem, but collapses when two hit at once. What happens if there is a spike in demand at the same time as the national insurance number tracker finds a disproportionate number of two-year data point gaps in the HMRC database? That's where you'd have an issue.

The system is also heavily biased towards the young, the urban and the tech-literate. What about older people, who don't use the internet, let alone apps? What about the fruit-pickers who come for seasonal work and do not even speak English. What about people who do not read or care about the news? What about those with mental health problems, who are unaware this is happening or that their status could be in any way questioned?

The Home Office insists it is working hard with community groups and employers to access and help these types of people. But a lot of futures will be defined by how many people they can help and how dedicated they are to doing so.

The final danger is the future. At the moment, the promises are fine and dandy. But in some other part of that department, the colleagues of the people doing this were just weeks ago pursuing the Windrush Generation. People who'd lived here their whole lives – who'd received plenty of assurances about their status – were experiencing dawn raids, detention centres and deportation. Given that this is more in line with how the Home Office typically behaves, EU citizens could be forgiven for treating today's assurances with a pinch of salt.

I share the doubts about the strength of the IT systems, but cautiously supportive of the rest.

generally.

**Riquende**

My next door neighbour was burgled last night whilst he was in his garden. My street is a really quiet mostly-retired sort of affair, so I've never known a serious crime in the 3.5 years I've been there.

Given a 1-day increase in crime roughly in the area of infinity percent, I now expect a daily struggle against the much-discussed hordes of beweaponed ne'erdowells.

**Kilkrazy**

If it works, I think it actually sounds a pretty good system, especially with an Android app to let you do it easily with a smartphone.

It needs to be as simple and hurdle free as possible, and cheap.

**Da krimson barun**

Republicans have attempted to come forward. Peace and reconciliation commission. That's our offer. We've handed in as many of the disappeared as we could haven't we? If Gerry comes forward and says he's former OC Belfast will the files on Dublin-Monaghan be opened? Nope. McGurks bar? Doubt it. What motivation does the Republican movement have to point fingers at eachother? while the British government secretly cut up our dead and "lost" the evidence? I support the lads who did Enniskillen being sent to prison. But why should they go there, while the British government denies us the truth about Glennane?

**Whirlwind**

Kilkrazy wrote:
If it works, I think it actually sounds a pretty good system, especially with an Android app to let you do it easily with a smartphone.

It needs to be as simple and hurdle free as possible, and cheap.

The issue is that they are still second class citizens because they only are allocated a 'settled status'. There are concerns that if they go home to look after an ill relative for too long then that might be revoked. They can easily change those rules once we have left because of the 'settled' status as the remaining people in the Tory party become more right wing and desperate to please the anti-immigration crowd.

Javid is quoted as saying that there would have to be very good reasons things to be refused but decline to state what they are. Leaked reports show that the following red lines have been concluded by the Tory party:-

1) We are the Tory party and are racist donkey-caves
2) We are the Tory party and are racist donkey-caves pandering to racist donkey-caves
3) We are the Tory party and hate the idea of anyone other than being UK born being anything but slaves to the country (and we are racist donkey-caves).

On an aside note as a UK and EU individual member, can any UK citizen apply and be considered by the UK as a continued EU citizen?

**Kilkrazy**

Whirlwind wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
If it works, I think it actually sounds a pretty good system, especially with an Android app to let you do it easily with a smartphone.

It needs to be as simple and hurdle free as possible, and cheap.

The issue is that they are still second class citizens because they only are allocated a 'settled status'. There are concerns that if they go home to look after an ill relative for too long then that might be revoked. ... ...

Not sure what you want, really.

This is a route which gives EU citizens a fast track to remaining in the UK, much quicker, easier and cheaper than other nationalities.

Anyone who lives here long enough is entitled to apply for citizenship, if that's what they want. One of my work colleagues did it, who is a Polish lady.

**Whirlwind**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Not sure what you want, really.

This is a route which gives EU citizens a fast track to remaining in the UK, much quicker, easier and cheaper than other nationalities.

Anyone who lives here long enough is entitled to apply for citizenship, if that's what they want. One of my work colleagues did it, who is a Polish lady.

Basically treat them as any other UK human being in the country with no 'stigma' of being settled etc and allowing future changes to this defintion result in them beign considered differently. A dual nationality of sorts with no questions asked, no silly questions and so forth. If they don't wnat it then guarantueed to considered the same as any other UK human being. This is typical Tory gold plating a turd. Give you what you they think is acceptable only to show them that it really is a turd when they can get away with it.