Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

When wondering about Labour's "incompetence" and such, perhaps there are two things people don't want to think about:

1. the FPTP system is messed up, archaic, and undemocratic
2. The Tories, their policies and character ARE closer to the national character, for better or worse

[Sheilbh]

Give it a few years.
Even as it was clear brexit was bound to be an absolute disaster in the lead up there was a heavy "just give it a chance" element.
There needs to be a few years of suffering before this becomes a politically viable option.
I do seriously think its a case of when, not if, the UK rejoins. At the least sliding into a Switzerland style situation.

Short of an absolute national catastrophe, I don't think we'll ever re-join. We were always half-in/half-out and, that option's gone, so given the choice between fully in or out I think the UK would choose out. It's a bit like the Scottish IndyRef. If Remain had won no doubt the Leave campaigners would be flagging how things have materially changed because of, say, the covid recovery fund (assuming we didn't blow it up). But unless there's a confirmatory referendum, Leave or Yes only need to win once.

I can see Switzerland more - but probably not for at least a decade.

Iraq certainly has hurt labour as a whole. Even amongst flag shaggers. It works as a standard issue dismissal of the entire time Blair was pm.

But not the Tories who also supported it. And there is something of an example there - in this case it was Labour's mistake but Labour's spent 15 years in internal turmoil and strife over it between different factions. The Tories enthusiastically signed up for that mistake and have just moved on.

1. the FPTP system is messed up, archaic, and undemocratic

It's another democratic system. I would prefer alternatives - I like the Scottish system or the slightly less proportional version proposed by Lord Jenkins in his report for the Blair government. But I think in a way the system's performed how it's meant to and produced the benefits it's meant to. We have lots of rebellious MPs who are happy voting against the whip because they are directly elected/not dependent on their position in a regional list and, like it or not, we have a strong, single party government that can pass the agenda they presented to voters.

But I think it's very difficult to see a route to reform unless there's another trend away from the main parties because the parties that win are the ones that benefit from it and the democratic issue is less pronounced.  It's just less of a problem when the party with a majority won 44% of the vote than, for example, the 2005 Labour government which had a majority of 50 seats but only won 35% of the vote (to the Tories 32% of the vote).

In a way the referendum was the end of a period of Europeanisation of UK politics where you had the centre-left and the centre-right on about 30-35% of the vote, the liberals on about 15-20% of the vote and left or right alternatives on about 5-10% of the vote. In our system that didn't produce coalitions because those minority parties weren't fairly represented - there have been 2 UKIP MPs and both were initially elected as Tories despite UKIP winning about 15% of the vote in PR elections. Instead they were a sort of extra-parliamentary influence. But since the referendum we've had two elections where the two main parties win 75+% of the vote - it's back to how it was before the 90s and I think if the vote is in that range then FPTP is as good as any other system.

2. The Tories, their policies and character ARE closer to the national character, for better or worse

100%. Until the New Labour era every person who became Tory leader also became PM. They are the "natural party of government" in the UK and one of the most successful parties in the democratic world - up there with the LDP in Japan, CDU in Germany, Fianna Fail etc. They're absolutely reptilian in their ability to change enough to keep winning a majority. They're the ultimate Leopard party.

And Thatcherism's a bit of an outlier in how ideological and strident it was, but one trick that they've done before is have a leader who is mainly making a performance of being unsuited for the job/out of time while moving in a popular (if not populist) way. It makes me wonder about Johnson if his bumbling act is just the latest iteration. Is he succeeding that style from Lord Salisbury who posed as a reactionary ("whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible") while passing the legislation that built council houses and the start of state education and suburban Toryism, or MacMillan who posed as a slightly frail elderly Edwardian gentleman in the 1960s while presiding over the creation of mass consumer culture in the UK?

I can't remember who it was who first made it, but I keep thinking about the MacMillan comparison. MacMillan burned through Chancellors because he always wanted the economy running hot and always wanted to spend money, which caused issues with Conservative Chancellors who tended to think there needed to be some restraint (I think he got through four in six years) - which I suspect may be a feature of Johnson's premiership. Also in the cabinet MacMillan was the most hawkish on Nasser in the run-up to Suez which led to a national humiliation, but then MacMillan was the person who benefited when Eden stepped down

[Josquius]

Short of an absolute national catastrophe, I don't think we'll ever re-join. We were always half-in/half-out and, that option's gone, so given the choice between fully in or out I think the UK would choose out. It's a bit like the Scottish IndyRef. If Remain had won no doubt the Leave campaigners would be flagging how things have materially changed because of, say, the covid recovery fund (assuming we didn't blow it up). But unless there's a confirmatory referendum, Leave or Yes only need to win once.

I can see Switzerland more - but probably not for at least a decade.

That's the thing with where the tories have gotten themselves, sowing division and focussing on boomers. It is radicalising both sides. And in demographic change is on the anti-brexit side.
I really would see the calls for 'hard rejoin' picking up as the years go by and Europe really begins to pull ahead.

The potential spoke in the works is the also almost inevitable Scottish independence. This will delay things. But I'd be surprised if the UK isn't a full part of Europe by 2040. In a Swiss-style situation by the end of this decade.

[Zanza]

A Swiss like integration with the EU is likely to happen as it is just in the long term interest of Britain, regardless of the sovereignity absolutists like Johnson on Frost now in charge. Leaders will change eventually and Britain cannot escape geography.

Rejoining is not a realistic policy option any time soon. Neither in Britain, nor does the EU want the UK back at the moment. Might be different in a few years or decades.

By the way, I don't expect Europe to "pull ahead". Britain is probably, even with the permanent drag on growth that lack of integration with Europe means, at least as dynamic as other economies in Europe that face other issues where Britain has advantages.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I agree. A country can't be chopping and changing with EU membership. If we do that then we will have the worst of both worlds.

Our best route forward is to make pragmatic arrangements with the EU that benefit the economies of both parties. Close co-operation on things like science and culture would also be good, we may have to wait a few years for that.

[Sheilbh]

That's the thing with where the tories have gotten themselves, sowing division and focussing on boomers. It is radicalising both sides. And in demographic change is on the anti-brexit side.
I really would see the calls for 'hard rejoin' picking up as the years go by and Europe really begins to pull ahead.

I don't buy demographics on almost any issue or political party. I personally think the more likely trajectory is the anti-Tory youth of the 80s who are the backbone of this Tory majoirty and voted for Brexit. Attitudes will change with demographics the Tories will adapt and change - because that's what they do and it'll be just like they have over the gays or the environment or race. The young meanwhile will grow older, inherit or buy property and start voting their class/material interest and become Tories just like every previous generation (which is why housing is the key to everything ).

Of course the slight wrinkle could actually be if the attitudes of the young and the attitudes of the EU diverge. So I think we are far more influenced by US politics and particularly identity politics in younger generations. I've noted before that mainstream positions in many European countries about halal or the hijab are considered beyond the pale far-right in the UK. And I see a lot of resistance to US style identity politics, especially in France, but in Europe more generally - as I've mentioned I think there is a risk of Europe taking a civilisational turn. But even without that I think there is the possibility that American culture (especially around identity politics) and continental European culture may diverge and I think the UK is more exposed to the US.

So two recent parallels. In the UK we've had the (successful) strike by students of Pimlico Academy where the kids protested, I think admirably, their curriculum, the UK flag (weird for a school to have a flag ) and changes to the uniform code that banned colourful hijabs and hairstyles that could impair someone else's view (basically afros). I saw lots of support for the kids and they succeeded - to me it's clear that those uniform rules might be for everyone but basically only impact Muslim girls and black kids which is wrong. There's also a CJEU discrimination case on whether bosses can fire women for wearing the hijab. The court hasn't made the decision yet, but the advocate general's opinion is that this is acceptable because you can't ban "small-scale religious symbols" but you can ban large religious symbols under European human rights law. The point being that companies should be able to present neutrally and ban expressions of political, religious or philosophical beliefs at work. By definition a head scarf is not small scale so it's not discrimination (interestingly the original advocate general who is British qualified - and suing for being fired - published her opinion which reached the opposite conclusion that this was indirect discrimination that in practice would only impact certain minorities).

Nothing is certain about any of this but if those two parallels continue, I wonder if young Brits in 2040 even see the EU as a "progressive" option. I've no idea and as I say there's no definiteness to those thoughts, it just seems like an interesting cultural difference that is starting to emerge.

The potential spoke in the works is the also almost inevitable Scottish independence. This will delay things. But I'd be surprised if the UK isn't a full part of Europe by 2040. In a Swiss-style situation by the end of this decade.

Yeah I don't think we'll ever re-join. I can see a Swiss style relationship but I don't think that coversation even starts this side of 2030. And I think it probably starts with easy stuff like Erasmus, research funding, cultural events etc.

A Swiss like integration with the EU is likely to happen as it is just in the long term interest of Britain, regardless of the sovereignity absolutists like Johnson on Frost now in charge. Leaders will change eventually and Britain cannot escape geography.

Rejoining is not a realistic policy option any time soon. Neither in Britain, nor does the EU want the UK back at the moment. Might be different in a few years or decades.

I find your faith that Britain will do what's in its long term interest touching But I agree on rejoining.

By the way, I don't expect Europe to "pull ahead". Britain is probably, even with the permanent drag on growth that lack of integration with Europe means, at least as dynamic as other economies in Europe that face other issues where Britain has advantages.

Interesting - I definitely do. I think the next few years will be a bit weird because the UK was so badly hit, I think we'll have very strong growth - while much of Europe was less badly hit so the growth will be a little lower. The only big variable I'm not sure about with Europe is if the UK does massive spending while the EU struggles to get the recovery fund up and running I think that could have a permanent hit.

But otherwise my expectation on the impact of Brexit is that in 20-30 years time British tourists will be stood around the baggage carousel with other Europeans and we will be and will look poorer. I think it will have a real and quite substantial hit on people's incomes - but over the medium/long-term. I'm not sure it'll be as bad as in the 70s but probably not far off.

[Josquius]

The thing is though those 80s Labour voters largely remain Labour voters.
A small number of them have switched, and the reasons for this are fairly understandable; primarily the Corbyn=IRA stuff we've been getting but also the brexit cult that arose thanks to 30 years of constant media nonsense on top of their already existing pre 1988 view on Europe.
Going forward too its worth bearing in mind the old generational churn and media influence is waning. Kids today aren't being brainwashed by the mainstream media in the way boomers were. In a way the far worse situation they're facing with micro targetted propeganda I'd say is working to inoculate them against this kind of nonsense.
Also important is that they're growing up with the world thanks to the internet even if you do take international travel away from them. This is something that the older generation didn't have.
We can also see clear evidence that the materialst ways of the mid 20th century seem to be on the wane among the young generation. Perhaps helped by everything being digital and the concept of ownership becoming such a fuzzy concept. I just don't think the DN are so self centred as boomers.
I really can't see the under 35s attitudes on Europe changing all that much. I can only see them hardening as the country becomes poorer, inequality becomes ever worse, the prospect of owning their own house remains out of reach, etc...
The boomers stole our country. We want it back. Even if we have to wait until they're in the ground to get it.

[crazy canuck]

They don't look too appealing to me but I vastly prefer them to the semi-detached nightmare of Spain's boom years.

That seems a bit on the large side.  Imagine the amount of time you would need to spend cleaning.

[Sheilbh]

The cursed percentages are back


Separately - based on latest polls the pro-Indy parties would get over 50% of the vote and have a 35 seat majority. It seems very difficult to reject a mandate for a second referendum.

The thing is though those 80s Labour voters largely remain Labour voters.
A small number of them have switched, and the reasons for this are fairly understandable; primarily the Corbyn=IRA stuff we've been getting but also the brexit cult that arose thanks to 30 years of constant media nonsense on top of their already existing pre 1988 view on Europe.

I think loads of them switched. People who were in the teens/twenties in the 80s are in their 50s and 60s - they are now the backbone of the Tory (and Brexit vote). Now maybe actually there was always a tiny anti-Thatcher sentiment among the young and it's a bit over-played (like hippies) in the late 60s. But I think part of it is also that they started voting Tory after about 2010.

We can also see clear evidence that the materialst ways of the mid 20th century seem to be on the wane among the young generation. Perhaps helped by everything being digital and the concept of ownership becoming such a fuzzy concept. I just don't think the DN are so self centred as boomers.
I really can't see the under 35s attitudes on Europe changing all that much. I can only see them hardening as the country becomes poorer, inequality becomes ever worse, the prospect of owning their own house remains out of reach, etc...
The boomers stole our country. We want it back. Even if we have to wait until they're in the ground to get it.

I am not convinced materialism is on the wane - if anything I think it is going to become more salient given the politics of climate and in particular how the costs of that are distributed.

I think a big driver of Brexit and the type of politics we've had is that in the last 15 years productivity has stalled in a way that's unprecedented historically and very different than peer countries. Quality of life has carried on increasing but that's been driven by Brits working more, rather than producing more. That material situation, in my view, drives a zero-sum politics where the culture war can thrive. It's far less of an issue if everyone is having more of everything how that pie gets divvied up. My view is that the politics of climate will be similar for the entire world, it will be far more zero sum and materialist than the post-war era where everywhere is growing.

There's a possibility that there will be a real shift for the under 35s - if only because until 1997 only 20% of people went to university and we're now up to 50%. Education is a big divider in many countries. But I think housing will be key and I think the Tories know that "solving" the housing issue so people in their thirties can buy is fundamental to them succeeding.

Given that they're one of the most successful and adaptable political parties in the democratic world, I wouldn't bet against them finding a solution that means they keep winning elections.

[Sheilbh]

Also - interesting thread from a barrister on why that section of the policing bill that did the rounds on Twitter is not something to worry about. Basically it's a codification of the common law that was recommended by non-partisan lawyers:

SpinningHugo
@SpinningHugo
At the risk of sounding even more of an illiberal apologist for the government than I have been of late, having read around the issue of clause 59 of the Police,Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (#killthebill) the objections seem to me to be groundless.

Why?

/1
The Bill is here
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839

It is a product of this Law Commission Report, if you read cl 59 and the conclusions at pp 78-9 you'll see they're nearly identical.
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/06/lc358_public_nuisance.pdf
/2
So, the clause is the produce of a Law Commission Report from 6 years ago.

The Law Commission is a technical law reform body set up in the 60s. It is indepedent of government.
/3
Now the wording of cl 59 might be tightened or more narrowly drafted, but whether the Bill is a "Very Bad Thing" should be determined by whether the offence created is worse than the law as it currently stands.

Is it?

No.
/4
The current law is a common law offence called "public nuisance". This is clearly and carefully discussed in the Law Commission's Report at pp 5-14.
/5
The problem with the common law offence (as with all common law offences, see one J Bentham) is that its boundaries are very obscure. The current law really *is* worth protesting about, It provides very poor guidance both to citizens and to the police.
/6
The Law Commission's job is not to decide policy questions which are the realm of Parliament. It is a fence mending body. And that is what it has done in its proposals, and that is what cl 59 attempts to do.
/7
It is a codification of the current law, using clearer language. A quick look at Archbold tells me that the common law offence of public nuisance is not moribund or unused. It is live law.
/8
As a codification, any court should (and would) interpret the provision in the light of the current law. The clause introduces a new rule (Cl 59(3)) that is a slight narrowing of the offence "reasonable excuse").
/9
The correct interpretation of the offence would also be governed by the Human Rights Act.
/10
There is no express provision in relation to protest, but the current law makes no such express allowance either, and the clause at least has a new rule ("reasonable excuse") that does so cover protest.
/11
Now you might still object to cl 59, and think it should be narrower.

Fair enough.

But on any fair reading it is clearer and narrower than the current law.
/12
It would have been a good thing if those denouncing the Bill, particularly lawyers, had responded to the Law Commission's original Consultation Paper.

10 (ten) people did so.
/13
If you were a government minister, and saw the response to a fairly innocuous piece of legislation to codify part of the criminal law, how would you respond?
/14
I'd respond by never touching any Law Commission proposal on the criminal law ever again. It clearly isn't worth the cost.
/15
So, the effect of the scaremongering about cl 59 (which may be a Bad Offence, but is less bad than the one we now have) is that all hope for reform and codification of the criminal law will be killed stone dead.

Thanks.
/ends

[Josquius]

I am not convinced materialism is on the wane - if anything I think it is going to become more salient given the politics of climate and in particular how the costs of that are distributed.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Young people overwhelmingly fall on the pro environment side.

I think a big driver of Brexit and the type of politics we've had is that in the last 15 years productivity has stalled in a way that's unprecedented historically and very different than peer countries. Quality of life has carried on increasing but that's been driven by Brits working more, rather than producing more. That material situation, in my view, drives a zero-sum politics where the culture war can thrive. It's far less of an issue if everyone is having more of everything how that pie gets divvied up. My view is that the politics of climate will be similar for the entire world, it will be far more zero sum and materialist than the post-war era where everywhere is growing.

There's a possibility that there will be a real shift for the under 35s - if only because until 1997 only 20% of people went to university and we're now up to 50%. Education is a big divider in many countries. But I think housing will be key and I think the Tories know that "solving" the housing issue so people in their thirties can buy is fundamental to them succeeding.

Given that they're one of the most successful and adaptable political parties in the democratic world, I wouldn't bet against them finding a solution that means they keep winning elections.

Never say never.
We know the tories have no principles and will become full on Maoists, on the surface at least, if they think it will win them elections.
But they're very firmly entrenched in opposing fixing the housing crisis, brexit, and all that other horrible stuff that the young want nothing to do with.
As mentioned generations work differently these days and media is in a transitional period. I really doubt the Tories ability to continue to reinvent themselves going forward and to continue selling the religion of brexit as its adherants die off.,

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure I get your point here. Young people overwhelmingly fall on the pro environment side.

Sure but it is going to change the way we leave and there will be costs. The material impact of making those changes will be uneven and I think one of the key coming issues in politics is how that impact is distributed.

We will make huge changes because regardless of whether people are pro-environment or not, it's a fact that we are going to have to respond to. The politics of distributing the material impact - who should pay, who should be required to change their lifestyle etc - is going to be huge. And it's going to be zero sum because just carrying on won't be an option and it's going to be materialist because what it boils down to is distributing a social cost to individuals.

As mentioned generations work differently these days and media is in a transitional period. I really doubt the Tories ability to continue to reinvent themselves going forward and to continue selling the religion of brexit as its adherants die off.,

I think this is the key difference. I don't think Brexit keeps being a dividing issue except for a very small minority. I think it fades into being one of many issues - like tax or law and order or immigration or the NHS. And voters will decide in the round like they do in all elections.

[Sheilbh]

After 4-5 days of riots in primarily unionist areas (including one terrifying incident where a bus was petrol bombed - luckily the only person on board was the driver who got out) - things took a turn last night with petrol bombs and fireworks being fired across peace walls (which separate unionist and nationalist areas - mainly in working class areas of different cities) in several areas of Belfast but especially Shankill Road. Tonight the rioting has mainly been in nationalist areas (Springfield Road which is the other side of the Shankill peace wall):

White House expresses concern over Northern Ireland violence
Joe Biden joins Boris Johnson and Irish prime minister in a call for calm after worst violence in Belfast in years
Lisa O'Carroll, Rory Carroll and Rajeev Syal
Thu 8 Apr 2021 19.28 BST
Last modified on Fri 9 Apr 2021 00.00 BST

The White House has expressed concern over a week of riots in Northern Ireland, with Joe Biden joining Boris Johnson and the Irish prime minister in calling for calm after what police described as the worst violence in Belfast for years.

It came as police used water cannon against nationalist youths in west Belfast, as unrest stirred again on the streets on Thursday evening, with reports that officers later warned they could use "impact rounds" – also known as plastic bullets.

In a statement, the US president's press secretary, Jen Psaki, said: "We are concerned by the violence in Northern Ireland" and that Biden remained "steadfast" in his support for a "secure and prosperous Northern Ireland in which all communities have a voice and enjoy the gains of the hard-won peace".

She spoke as the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, called on political leaders across the spectrum to tone down their language to ease tensions.

Biden, who has Irish roots, has repeatedly expressed support for the peace process and last year waded into a row over UK plans to override parts of the Brexit deal, warning Boris Johnson that any trade deal was "contingent upon respect for the [peace] agreement and preventing the return of a hard border".

Police said as many as 600 people had been involved in disturbances in Belfast on Wednesday, when a bus was petrol-bombed, plastic bullets were fired and missiles were hurled over a "peace wall".

With parts of Belfast scarred and a political crisis brewing, the Northern Ireland assembly united in its condemnation of the rioting and agreed a motion calling for an end to the "deplorable" violence and support for the rule of law.

Boris Johnson and the Irish prime minister, Micheál Martin, spoke by phone on Thursday, called for calm, and agreed that "the way forward is through dialogue and working the institutions of the Good Friday agreement".

Northern Ireland was plunged into crisis after violence escalated at the intersection between loyalist and nationalist communities in the Shankill and Springfield areas.

Police said rioters had thrown petrol bombs, bottles, masonry and fireworks, and a Belfast Telegraph photographer was attacked. Police fired six plastic bullets known as attenuating energy projectiles (AEPs) on Wednesday night. Eight officers were injured in the unrest and two men aged 28 and 18 were arrested on suspicion of riotous behaviour.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland assistant chief constable Jonathan Roberts said Wednesday's mayhem "was at a scale we have not seen in recent years" and it was lucky that no one had been seriously hurt or killed.

Stones and fireworks were thrown at police by gangs of youths gathered on the nationalist Springfield Road on Thursday evening, close to where Wednesday night's riots took place. Police deployed water cannon after protesters failed to disperse. Later in the evening, there were reports that police warned crowds "impact rounds will be fired". The plastic bullets are not used as a means of crowd control in any part of the UK apart from Northern Ireland, and their use has been condemned by human rights groups.

Lewis was due to hold virtual meetings with leaders of all five parties in the Northern Ireland executive, including the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Féin and the Alliance party, on Friday morning.

After touching down in Belfast, he said he had encouraged politicians to "think very carefully" about the language they used. He added: "Not just unionists, but if you look at the tweets and messages from politicians from all parties, they have put out messages that can be interpreted in a particular way as having a bit of spite to them.

"I don't think there is any place for that. I have spoken to people across parties about that."

He named no names, but public positions have become polarised over both the Brexit protocols for Northern Ireland and recent decision not to prosecute Sinn Féin leaders who attended a funeral in contravention of health restrictions. "I think we all have to be very clear about the fact that what politicians here say matters," Lewis said.

There had been hopes that tensions could ease on Thursday as the Ulster Political Research Group, which is linked to the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association, called for an end to the violence, saying "street disturbances will not solve our issues". The Loyalist Communities Council, which represents loyalist paramilitary groups, reportedly met on Thursday afternoon, but failed to reach agreement on a statement condemning the violence.

Last night had extraordinary images - as well as the petrol bombs and fireworks a car rammed at the gate of the peace wall (the gates are normally closed in the evening). There were apparently local clergy (Catholic and Protestant) and local community/political leaders trying to calm the crowds down and get them to go home. The gate of the peace wall after the ramming:

This was earlier this evening when clergy and community leaders in the nationalist area tried to form a barricade between the growing crowd and the "interface area" (in this case the junction between their streets and the unionist streets):


There's been a few causes. Brexit has been in the background of loyalist anger for the last few months. But the more immediate trigger seems to have been the (universally condemned) Sinn Fein "state funeral" for the former IRA head of intelligence (and Sinn Fein party chairman) which broke covid regulations and the decision not to prosecute anyone over it. In addition there's apparently been a series of drug raids that hit groups affiliated with a loyalist paramilitary group or the UDA itself.

Since peace the paramilitaries on both sides have partly re-purposed as slightly political organised criminals - so many paramilitary either are involved in drugs or human trafficking, or make money off people who are, which helps fund the paramilitary side of things. One of the weird signs of the peace process working was that in the last few years there's actually been cases where loyalist and republican groups were cooperating on human/drug trafficking.

Edit: And worth noting that the reporters are mainly in Belfast but there's also been unrest in Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey and Derry.

[The Larch]

A relatively "oldie but goldie" piece of news, EU citizens keep getting their settled status rejected by the Home Office for arcane reasons.

Woman rejected for settled status despite living in UK for 17 years
EU citizens' rights campaigner and BBC journalist has bid turned down over insufficient proof

A campaigner for EU citizens' rights in the UK has said she is in a state of shock after the Home Office rejected her application for settled status despite her having lived in the country for more than half her life.

Dahaba Ali, 27, moved to the UK at the age of 10. She was born in the Netherlands where her mother was granted refugee status after fleeing the conflict in Somalia.

She works as a producer on BBC Newsnight and Politics Live as well as writing for various national print media. Ali is also a prominent campaigner with the organisation The3Million which campaigns for the rights of EU citizens in the UK.

The campaign has repeatedly raised concerns that some EU citizens with a right to remain in the UK would struggle to access and navigate the settled status application process, which closes on 30 June.

She spent her childhood in London and then attended Cambridge University, securing a partial scholarship to study history. She applied for EU settled status for herself and her mother last October.

While her mother's status was granted, Ali received a letter from the Home Office dated 28 March 2021 which states: "Your application has been carefully considered but unfortunately from the information available you do not meet the requirements of the scheme. I am sorry to inform you that your application has therefore been refused."

It adds that while there is evidence that she has lived in the UK "periodically" between February 2016 and December 2019, this is a period of less than five years.

"My heart sank and I felt sick when I read the letter," said Ali. She said she had not left the UK last year, the time Home Office has asked her about. She said she did not receive any text messages to her phone and only found emails from the Home Office asking her for more information about her case after she received her EUSS refusal and looked in her email spam folder.

"Am I really being punished because I missed a couple of emails," she said. "I'm terrified I'll lose my right to work and be removed to Holland. I don't even speak Dutch any more."

A Home Office spokesperson said that Ali's application to the EU Settlement Scheme was refused because she failed to provide evidence of her residence in the UK.

"She is able to reapply to the scheme by 30 June 2021 and we encourage her to get in touch with the helpline where our dedicated staff can support her to provide the requested evidence.

"We made several repeated attempts to contact her over a number of weeks – by email, phone and text – but the evidence requested was not provided. We accept a range of evidence and will work with people on a case-by-case basis to consider other evidence if necessary."

[Tamas]

The computer says no!