Tag: Rights

The government has bowed to MPs’ pressure over the post-Brexit rights of EU citizens and reaffirmed pledges to give the Commons a veto on a no-deal departure after the latest parliamentary wrangling over Theresa May’s deadlocked plans. The concessions meant that the set of votes on the government’s latest Brexit motion, tabled in lieu of a still-elusive revised departure plan, was the first without a defeat for May. In a statement afterwards Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would back a public vote while also pushing for “other available options”, including a general election and Labour’s own Brexit plan. May to offer workers' rights pledges to gain Labour Brexit support Read more The key government climbdown was on an amendment tabled by the Conservative MP Alberto Costa, which called on ministers to secure the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK even in the event of no deal. It was adopted by the government without a vote, but only after Costa was sacked as a government aide and the home secretary, Sajid Javid, said he backed the plan before May had herself done so. Ministers unofficially accepted another amendment, from Labour’s Yvette Cooper, reiterating May’s commitment on Tuesday that she will allow MPs a vote on extending the Brexit deadline by mid-March if no departure deal has been agreed by then. Ministers also agreed to a parallel amendment by the Conservative MP Caroline Spelman on the same subject, which was passed without a vote, as was the plan tabled by Costa. The main government concession was announced in the debate’s opening speech by the cabinet office minister David Lidington, May’s de facto deputy. He said the government would back Costa’s amendment, which had been signed by 135 MPs, among them many Conservatives – a clear sign it would pass anyway. It’s about the rights of five million people “If I had to resign for that - so be it” says ??@AlbertoCostaMP? pic.twitter.com/Wz6UcyO5dM February 27, 2019 Adding to the confusion, the home secretary Sajid Javid seemed to pre-empt Lidington’s concession before the debate, using an earlier appearance before the home affairs select committee to say he had no objection to the amendment.

Here is what has been agreed in Brussels: Quick guide What happens next if May's Brexit deal is voted down? May brings it back to MPs Perhaps with minor tweaks after a dash to Brussels. MPs knuckle under and vote it through. Labour tries to force an election The opposition tables a vote of no confidence. The three main issues dealt with in the withdrawal agreement are citizens rights, the £39bn divorce deal and the problem of avoiding a border on the island of Ireland after Brexit. Brexit supporters loathe the backstop, fearing it will leave the UK “shackled” to EU rules. The UK has agreed a joint paper of just 26 pages outlining the parameters of the future relationship, with the two main pillars being trade and security. Trade and the city The prime minister’s central policy priority in terms of trade was to secure a commitment to frictionless trade in goods through a common rulebook, the centrepiece of the Chequers plan. The political declaration says the shared customs territory in the Northern Ireland backstop will be built on and improved in a future trade deal. The UK, bafflingly, insists this does not bind the British government to a customs union.

Instead Edward Llewellyn, the British ambassador, was subjected to a two-hour roasting by angry British nationals. “I went there seeking reassurance and I came away terrified about my future,” Ian Fox, a senior executive at an internationally renowned consumer brand in Paris, told the Guardian after the meeting. One woman wanted to know about inheritance law for children born in France and when the Department for Exiting the European Union official told her it was not within “his scope”, she interrupted: “Just say you don’t know.” She also wanted answers about the future EU research funding rights for a PhD student born to British parents in France, but now studying in London. Afterwards she said many felt the only way to not be stripped of rights was to get French nationality. “You say May is looking after our interests,” he told the ambassador. Whatever they are doing can only be considered making the best of a very bad job indeed.” Our rights to EU citizenship are worth fighting for – despite Brexit | Jolyon Maugham Read more About 60 British nationals went to the “outreach” meeting on Monday night, armed with detailed questions about their rights, the rights of their children to remain EU citizens, and freedom to continue working across Europe. There are an estimated 100,000 British nationals in France and, like many of the estimated 1 million Britons settled in other EU countries, chief among their concerns are the end of freedom of movement after Brexit and employment rights. British people will become third country nationals after Brexit. The British officials did not have a good answer for one man who asked how Britons would be treated when national law in some countries dictates that priority is given to EU nationals in employment, barring UK nationals from automatic consideration for jobs in the EU post-2020. ” The ambassador said he would feed the concerns raised back to the government and would hold more outreach events in future.

When the Founders first wrote and passed what we know call the Second Amendment, they viewed the Constitution in an entirely different way than most people do today. Most laws were passed at the state and local levels, and state constitutions determined the limits of those laws, including gun laws. Following the passage of the 14th Amendment—which reads, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”—some courts began determining that at least some of the federal Bill of Rights applies to the states as well. For most issues, Americans are willing to accept such a model. Either left-wing states and their citizens will have to continue living in a nation in which guns are constitutionally protected, or they’ll have to change the Constitution to ban most or all types of guns from being owned. Unfortunately for gun advocates, left-wingers don’t need an amendment to gut the Constitution of its firearms protections. After all, liberals already have four justices on the bench who would likely approve of a law creating radical restrictions on gun rights, and the Court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is 81 years old. The United States needs a new amendment governing gun rights, and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law. This, coupled with clarifying language that makes it more difficult for federal authorities to restrict gun rights, would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it. But it would also ensure citizens in states where guns are valued—which, by the way, is most states—are guaranteed from ever having their gun rights taken from them by a Supreme Court controlled by left-wing justices.