cobrien.bsky.social
Professor of Law, University of York (she/her). Social security; EU law; discrimination; migration; social justice.
125 posts
1,933 followers
1,034 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I presume ‘good’ means ‘similar to my’ …
comment in response to
post
The rule that the rape clause only helps if you were raped in the right order - for the third or later child, not for child 1 or 2, is being challenged in court this month.
comment in response to
post
Yes there is. But you have to have them in the right order - if you have twins first, that’s yr lot - even if they were a result of rape. It’s all so glaringly horrible.
comment in response to
post
Also, the ‘until you can definitely provide for them’ rationale is disingenuous. The ONLY way to def never be in need due to unemployment, bereavement, family breakdown etc, is not through income - it’s through capital, and lots of it. It’s a policy that says only aristos should have more kids.
comment in response to
post
‘The benefits system is there to support ppl when they’re at their greatest need, EXCEPT CHILDREN IN POVERTY and should be there throughout life if needed EXCEPT DURING CHILDHOOD’
comment in response to
post
These kids, having the audacity to be born.
comment in response to
post
‘The benefits system is there to support ppl when they’re at their greatest need, EXCEPT CHILDREN IN POVERTY and should be there throughout life if needed EXCEPT DURING CHILDHOOD’
comment in response to
post
If ‘fairness, equality and opportunity’ are what matters to the Secretary of State, the two-child limit must be removed and ministers must step back from disability benefit cuts which can only mean more child poverty. 3/3
comment in response to
post
Unless government scraps the policy in its forthcoming child poverty strategy, the number of kids in poverty will reach 5 million by the end of this parliament and a generation of children will have been betrayed. 2/3
comment in response to
post
Or you could use other websites. They might close down if you don’t. (😂)
comment in response to
post
Join us! If I can tempt you, I'd be delighted to supervise work in EU law; social security law; discrimination law; migration law; social justice; and, of course, Brexit and Withdrawal Agreement law. Doctrinal, sociolegal, theoretical, or a heady combination. Please DM with thoughts.
comment in response to
post
Can confirm this has NOT been recognised by many medics.
comment in response to
post
Possibly of interest to: @jdportes.bsky.social; @davidallengreen.bsky.social; @anandmenon.bsky.social; @adrienneyong.bsky.social; @sylviademars.me; @akulith.bsky.social; @gillianmore.bsky.social; @neweuropeansuk.bsky.social; @euinuk.bsky.social; @lukepiper.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
The call for evidence notes that “the EU consistently stresses the importance it attaches to full UK implementation of the two main existing UK-EU agreements.” As such, we argue that a ‘reset’ must include resetting the approach to the Withdrawal Agreement.
comment in response to
post
The House of Lords European Affairs Committee has published our evidence outlining why a COMPLETE ABSENCE of documentary evidence of rights for EUSS holders in the UK – is a giant problem; *read it here*: committees.parliament.uk/writtenevide...
comment in response to
post
The govt's position is that the EU Settlement Scheme is severed from the WA. So - our EU-UK reset consultation response. Do you know what we need to do *before* creating shiny new rules as part of the UK-EU reset? We need to make the agreements already in place work properly!
comment in response to
post
Third, the very real and present risk of this/future governments stripping away rights from those with SETTLED STATUS, unless they prove it is based on the WA. A Court of Appeal judge yesterday described this risk as ‘fanciful’. It is not. Lack of documentary evidence of rights led to Windrush.
comment in response to
post
Second, there are fundamental *rule of law* principles at stake – what use are international rights if they are invisible? People need to know whether EU bodies (or the IMA) can help. This was recognised in the WA, and was the WHOLE POINT of the EUSS – certainty and clarity.
comment in response to
post
First, the issue that has already cropped up (in Fertre; pic of @the3million.bsky.social team intervening). The UK government argues that ‘pre-settled status’ under the EU Settlement Scheme – *set up to implement the WA* is not a WA residence right, so holders are not entitled to equal treatment.
comment in response to
post
Also possibly of interest to: @profjacob.bsky.social ; @alemanno.bsky.social; @fionacostello.bsky.social; @duncanrobinson.bsky.social; @simonfrcox.bsky.social; @publiclawproject.bsky.social; @michaelacbenson.bsky.social; @colinyeo.bsky.social; @sparkerworld.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
This issue was brilliantly highlighted by @lisaocarroll.bsky.social; submission co-authored by @awelsh.bsky.social; hopefully of interest to: @article21tfeu.bsky.social; @the3million.bsky.social; @moniquehawkins.bsky.social; @colinyeo.bsky.social; @stevepeers.bsky.social; @cbarnard.bsky.social;
comment in response to
post
Third, the very real and present risk of this or future governments stripping away rights from those with SETTLED STATUS, unless they can prove it is based on the WA. A judge yesterday described this risk as ‘fanciful’. It is not. Lack of documentary evidence of rights led to Windrush.
comment in response to
post
Second, there are fundamental Rule of Law principles at stake – what use are *international rights* if they are invisible? People need to know whether EU bodies (or the IMA) might be able to help. This was recognised in the WA, and was the WHOLE POINT of the EUSS – certainty and clarity.
comment in response to
post
First, as in the EWCA case of Fertre, the issue that has already cropped up – that the UK government argue that ‘pre-settled status’ under the EU Settlement Scheme – *set up to implement the WA* is not a WA residence right, so holders are not entitled to equal treatment.
comment in response to
post
Why does it matter that NOBODY in the UK currently knows whether or not they have Withdrawal Agreement based residence rights? (A Court of Appeal judge asked yesterday whether it was 'troubling anybody, except on the specific question of social assistance?’). Well, it matters for at least 3 reasons:
comment in response to
post
The call for evidence notes that “the EU consistently stresses the importance it attaches to full UK implementation of the two main existing UK-EU agreements.” As such, we argue that a ‘reset’ must include resetting the approach to the Withdrawal Agreement.
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/cobr...
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/cobr...
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/cobr...
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/cobr...
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/cobr...