Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
Hmmm, the actual story seems much less significant than the clickbait headline.
'The declaration, endorsed by 32 of the 33 Celac countries, with Nicaragua refusing because of language on the Ukraine conflict, states: “Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”'
And
' Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” '
Indeed, it is a very minor diplomatic victory for Argentina, but it is one that wouldn't have happened before 2016.
No doubt the UK would have insisted on no mention of the Falklands at all, but using both the Falklands and the Spanish name in a declaration where most of the Latin American countries obviously use the Spanish name, plus Spain on the EU side, is hardly a surprise (probably could claim a British diplomatic triumph that 'Falklands' is used first). And the statement itself is as innocuous and meaningless as possible.
'Brexit cited' in the URL is also misleading if you read the article, as it's only an anonymous official supposedly commenting on the UK's request for clarification:
'"We cannot issue a statement on their behalf.
“The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.”
The EU official added that “the Argentines have spun it in a certain way”.'
I loathed Barbie as a child. Loathed dolls, come to think of it. A film of it sounds utterly ghastly.
I've assumed from them managing to nab an acclaimed director that the intention was to make a glorified marketing campaign at least relatively ambitious, which can work, particularly if you can then defend obvious marketing as being ironic or providing commentary in some way. I saw a content description about the film containing commentary about the patriarchy.
They've certainly done a great job at providing awareness that the film exists (you'd be surprised how many movies sneak up even on those who go to the cinema a lot), whether people will actually turn out will be very interesting.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Actually all the EU said, Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands - nothing to do with us. UK government maybe wasn't wise in making this into an issue:
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
Of course, but the UK government will try any old bullshit to try and make people angry with the EU.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Actually all the EU said, Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands - nothing to do with us. UK government maybe wasn't wise in making this into an issue:
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
Of course, but the UK government will try any old bullshit to try and make people angry with the EU.
There are far more important issues to discuss then this
A fascinating character; someone who was one of the first generation of black-hat Internet hackers, and paid the price. After release from prison, h became a white-hat (good) hacker.
As someone on Twitter says: Both Heaven and Hell have hopefully installed two-factor Authentication"
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
By pure co-incidence, NatWest CEO was seen dining with the BBC journalist who broke the story, only a few hours beforehand.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
The reporting and monitoring requirements for a Politically Exposed Person are exceptionally onerous and must remove any profit in dealing with that person's affairs. It is not immediately obvious to me why any bank would wish to take on such a duty. Did our very well heeled Chancellor not have a similar problem recently?
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
A bit sad, but read through the SAR on the Mail website. The fundamental decision to exit Farage was based on his commercial eligibility. The bank's Reputational Risk Committee, naturally, collected data on Farage's reputational risks but these don't seem to have played much of a role in the decision, except perhaps as a reason not to make an exception for him when he no longer met commercial eligibility.
I think Farage has a reasonable general point on the opaqueness of banks' processes to cancel customer accounts, but I don't think he's a particularly egregious case.
That is a very large increase for the LibDems and no corresponding drop for any other party. So maybe a move from undecided based on the Tory choice of a very right wing candidate? Is the timing right for that to be a factor?
We’ve had the LibDems doing well in several national polls recently. Maybe it’s a by-election effect? Coverage of Somerstown & Frome and Mid-Beds has made the party more visible?
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
By pure co-incidence, NatWest CEO was seen dining with the BBC journalist who broke the story, only a few hours beforehand.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
The reporting and monitoring requirements for a Politically Exposed Person are exceptionally onerous and must remove any profit in dealing with that person's affairs. It is not immediately obvious to me why any bank would wish to take on such a duty. Did our very well heeled Chancellor not have a similar problem recently?
There might be all manner of good reasons why Coutts might not want Farage as a client. Which makes their apparently dishonest briefing about it particularly stupid.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
The reporting and monitoring requirements for a Politically Exposed Person are exceptionally onerous and must remove any profit in dealing with that person's affairs. It is not immediately obvious to me why any bank would wish to take on such a duty. Did our very well heeled Chancellor not have a similar problem recently?
If the great and the good are so worried about having bank accounts then serve them right - they shouldn't have let the banks close so many branches and so deny banking to many people. I'm currently stuck in an account with less than 0.5% interest because the online website tells me "write to your branch" which the buggers closed some years ago - waiting on the results of a letter to a branch 10 miles away.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Actually all the EU said, Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands - nothing to do with us. UK government maybe wasn't wise in making this into an issue:
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
Of course, but the UK government will try any old bullshit to try and make people angry with the EU.
There are far more important issues to discuss then this
Can we have your approved list of issues to discuss?
Is the UK government tacking back to conflict with the EU in a desperate attempt to get a few votes, having decided that the more cooperative tone they recently tried wasn't helping their polling?
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Actually all the EU said, Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands - nothing to do with us. UK government maybe wasn't wise in making this into an issue:
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
Of course, but the UK government will try any old bullshit to try and make people angry with the EU.
There are far more important issues to discuss then this
Can we have your approved list of issues to discuss?
Is the UK government tacking back to conflict with the EU in a desperate attempt to get a few votes, having decided that the more cooperative tone they recently tried wasn't helping their polling?
Also: it's not so long since Mrs Thatcher won a khaki election on the basis of an actual war in the Falklands/Islas Malvinas.
And many people died before that in the war itself.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
Which protected characteristic do you think is in play? I am not seeing one unless it was purely a political decision. Which, of course, they would not admit.
I expect three quite heavy loses for Sunak and the conservative party today, with a quiet satisfaction from the Johnson/Truss supporters who hope to see him lose and be replaced with a right wing Farage/Trump supporting mp much in the vein of the London mayoral candidate
This is not my conservative party which is being hijacked by a group of RefUK supporters so they can change it into their image
It is apparent on here from several posters including @HYUFD that they want Sunak out, so they can celebrate a new right wing conservative party toasting the move to the right in Italy, Spain, France and Germany and may God forbid Trump in the US in 2024
There are many of us who are looking on in horror and despair that a relative small membership has the power to destroy the party. Maybe those of us who were former members should re-join in our thousands to attempt to prevent the end of the conservative party as we know it, but to be fair at my age I see little point
These right wing zealots are blind to the havoc Johnson and Truss have bestowed on the party and cannot accept the fact that public attitudes have changed away from their ill thought out and tribal attitudes, and as long as it persists will give Starmer and labour the keys to No 10 for as long as they wish
For me, and many others, we are politically homeless for the foreseeable future but as a compensation just now there is the Ashes and the Open to immerse ourselves in
Time to put on the sandals and embrace the world of Liberal Democracy?
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
The reporting and monitoring requirements for a Politically Exposed Person are exceptionally onerous and must remove any profit in dealing with that person's affairs. It is not immediately obvious to me why any bank would wish to take on such a duty. Did our very well heeled Chancellor not have a similar problem recently?
If the great and the good are so worried about having bank accounts then serve them right - they shouldn't have let the banks close so many branches and so deny banking to many people. I'm currently stuck in an account with less than 0.5% interest because the online website tells me "write to your branch" which the buggers closed some years ago - waiting on the results of a letter to a branch 10 miles away.
Politicians love pouring regulations onto businesses, especially banks. They have a certain right to given the implicit state guarantee that we saw operate in 2008 but personally I find it mildly amusing that the same regulations come back and bite the political class on the arse.
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
That you can react in this way to the optimistic spin by Argentina of the wording on a relatively minor document signed between EU and various countries in South America tells me much more about the irrationality of some of those who persuaded us to leave the EU than it does about the quality of democracy practiced by the EU, or indeed about it’s tendency to make one want to vomit.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
Which protected characteristic do you think is in play? I am not seeing one.
Philosophy? The MoD lost an action for constructive dismissal of a SNP activist because he believed in Scottish independence, [edit] so perhaps there is a case for Mr Farage. If (I assume) rather a remote one from the actual Coutts decision. In the MoD case, the belief was central to their decision, by contrast.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.
This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.
If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.
Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
A bit sad, but read through the SAR on the Mail website. The fundamental decision to exit Farage was based on his commercial eligibility. The bank's Reputational Risk Committee, naturally, collected data on Farage's reputational risks but these don't seem to have played much of a role in the decision, except perhaps as a reason not to make an exception for him when he no longer met commercial eligibility.
I think Farage has a reasonable general point on the opaqueness of banks' processes to cancel customer accounts, but I don't think he's a particularly egregious case.
Yes, I think the fact that this is Coutts greatly diminishes the force of any purported ‘cancelling’ going on. If I walked into Coutts tomorrow and showed them my finances I’d be laughed out of the branch. That is of course a travesty but not for the reasons Richard claims.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
Which protected characteristic do you think is in play? I am not seeing one.
Philosophy? The MoD lost an action for constructive dismissal of a SNP activist because he believed in Scottish independence, [edit] so perhaps there is a case for Mr Farage. If (I assume) rather a remote one from the actual Coutts decision. In the MoD case, the belief was central to their decision, by contrast.
Philosophy is not a protected characteristic. Religion or belief is. It is not any belief though, there are qualifying characteristics. I think the case you are talking about involved a first tier tribunal deciding that belief in independence was a belief that met those characteristics. Its an interesting decision in that respect and a little disappointing that it was not taken further.
A fascinating character; someone who was one of the first generation of black-hat Internet hackers, and paid the price. After release from prison, h became a white-hat (good) hacker.
As someone on Twitter says: Both Heaven and Hell have hopefully installed two-factor Authentication"
Just heard there's a horse faire/gypsy event being held nearby, unexpectedly. Six thousand are anticipated. Businesses have been advised by police to get extra security, and plenty of them (especially pubs) have just closed.
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
A significant contribution must come from Leave voters who have died since the vote in 2016. I've lost a number of family members since then, all of whom voted Leave for various reasons. All of the Remains and Unknowns are still alive.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
Which protected characteristic do you think is in play? I am not seeing one.
Philosophy? The MoD lost an action for constructive dismissal of a SNP activist because he believed in Scottish independence, [edit] so perhaps there is a case for Mr Farage. If (I assume) rather a remote one from the actual Coutts decision. In the MoD case, the belief was central to their decision, by contrast.
Philosophy is not a protected characteristic. Religion or belief is. It is not any belief though, there are qualifying characteristics. I think the case you are talking about involved a first tier tribunal deciding that belief in independence was a belief that met those characteristics. Its an interesting decision in that respect and a little disappointing that it was not taken further.
Thanks. This one, by the way (the 'philosophical belief', which explains my wording no doubt, IANAL):
[Edit} Mod vetting allegedly had, inter aliis, "asked numerous questions about his mental health and his views on issues such as Trident, Irish politics and Rangers Football Club."
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
A significant contribution must come from Leave voters who have died since the vote in 2016. I've lost a number of family members since then, all of whom voted Leave for various reasons. All of the Remains and Unknowns are still with us.
You mean, like my father who was an avid Remainer and died last year?
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
A significant contribution must come from Leave voters who have died since the vote in 2016. I've lost a number of family members since then, all of whom voted Leave for various reasons. All of the Remains and Unknowns are still alive.
That's the thing about leavers; they've stopped making them.
Just seen this but with no indication of the terms it is not very helpful.
If you think of this in terms of a Socratic conversation about the terms of relationship between UK and EU, sure.
If you think of it in terms of predicting the result of a Brejoin vote, definitely. (Though the key thing there is that the polls will continue to move, one direction of movement seems way more likely than the other but who knows how things will look in a decade?)
But a lot of politics is way more about vibes than that. And the vibes are that the UK increasingly doesn't like the path that it chose to go down between 2016 and 2020. And the Conservatives, if nobody else, will eventually need that to go away, because everyone knows that that they are the ones who led us this way.
How unpopular does a big policy have to be before it is jettisoned, even if the alternatives are unpalatable? Twenty-five percent support? Twenty? Ten?
It is indeed, as it once again shows the EU's hatred of democracy and national sovereignty and complete idiocy when it comes to foreign policy.
No it shows that you need allies to defend your position in international relations. By downgrading our relationship with other European countries we have made that harder for ourselves, as many pointed out would happen beforehand.
It certainly shows that the EU has no respect for, or understanding of, democracy or sovereignty, or they wouldn't have agreed this statement. In fact, it shows it twice over, since not only do they show contempt for the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders, they show contempt for ours in voting to leave, according to their constitution.
Every time I start wondering whether leaving was worth it, something like this comes along and makes me remember how fundamentally nauseating and anti-democratic the EU is.
Better off out.
Actually all the EU said, Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands - nothing to do with us. UK government maybe wasn't wise in making this into an issue:
Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC's historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.
Of course, but the UK government will try any old bullshit to try and make people angry with the EU.
There are far more important issues to discuss then this
Can we have your approved list of issues to discuss?
Is the UK government tacking back to conflict with the EU in a desperate attempt to get a few votes, having decided that the more cooperative tone they recently tried wasn't helping their polling?
Cost of living crisis is number one and the EU naming Falklands it is not an issue as far as I am concerned
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
A significant contribution must come from Leave voters who have died since the vote in 2016. I've lost a number of family members since then, all of whom voted Leave for various reasons. All of the Remains and Unknowns are still with us.
You mean, like my father who was an avid Remainer and died last year?
I expect three quite heavy loses for Sunak and the conservative party today, with a quiet satisfaction from the Johnson/Truss supporters who hope to see him lose and be replaced with a right wing Farage/Trump supporting mp much in the vein of the London mayoral candidate
This is not my conservative party which is being hijacked by a group of RefUK supporters so they can change it into their image
It is apparent on here from several posters including @HYUFD that they want Sunak out, so they can celebrate a new right wing conservative party toasting the move to the right in Italy, Spain, France and Germany and may God forbid Trump in the US in 2024
There are many of us who are looking on in horror and despair that a relative small membership has the power to destroy the party. Maybe those of us who were former members should re-join in our thousands to attempt to prevent the end of the conservative party as we know it, but to be fair at my age I see little point
These right wing zealots are blind to the havoc Johnson and Truss have bestowed on the party and cannot accept the fact that public attitudes have changed away from their ill thought out and tribal attitudes, and as long as it persists will give Starmer and labour the keys to No 10 for as long as they wish
For me, and many others, we are politically homeless for the foreseeable future but as a compensation just now there is the Ashes and the Open to immerse ourselves in
Time to put on the sandals and embrace the world of Liberal Democracy?
Here in North Wales that is pointless unfortunately
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Will Newsnight explain that new AML rules have recently been introduced and also explain the requirements round PEPs or will we just get a Farage whinge?
AFAIK NatWest has offered him banking services. Just not with Coutts.
It is possible that the bank has made a decision for the wrong reasons. But it is also possible that it has assessed his account in line with the new requirements and come to a different decision from before which would not necessarily be surprising, given that the rules are stricter.
You really should stop believing the Coutts/BBC line - which has now been thoroughly demolished by Coutts' own documents - and start thinking about the knock on effects of banks being able to withdraw services because they don't like your - perfectly legal - politics.
Oh and Nat West only offered a replacement 4 days after the story had made the news since they were desperately seeking to avoid embarrasment.
It's not 'the BBC line', as their reporting this morning makes pretty clear. Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it. Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it. It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
In the old days, there was a good system for dealing with people feeding lies to the press, as anonymous sources.
They would get their name published front and centre as a liar.
That is the logic behind a lot of election messaging. If the Tories go culture war as expected at the GE they will be claiming an endorsement for all things woke when they lose.
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
They will engage with it - it will enable much closer cooperation without political backlash for a start.
On engaging to the point of rejoining that will take more time, andci suspect we'll be willing to consider it long before the EU is willing to agree it - any significant anti EU parties and it would be too risky.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
I mentioned a few weeks ago about a company who were having trouble getting banking for in the UK who I was asked to help. Their problem wasn’t that their business was illegal but that certain elements in society don’t approve and so they were hitting a wall where activist staff were kicking off and so the management in banks were reluctant to open accounts.
This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.
If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.
Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
TanksALot have entered the chat.
I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.
Farage on Newsnight with Kirsty Wark to talk about his bank account being cancelled.
If he will insist on depositing bloody cash, who can blame them?
Let's have a new law saying businesses must accept cash.
Now here's a thing.
If an incoming government banned cash transactions it would make tax free, VAT free, tradesman hobbles far more difficult to execute. The grey economy would collapse and tax take would be substantially improve overnight.
It would also be a bit of a head scratcher for low level drug dealers, top drawer gangsters and illegal car wash businesses, oh and Turkish barbers.
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
A significant contribution must come from Leave voters who have died since the vote in 2016. I've lost a number of family members since then, all of whom voted Leave for various reasons. All of the Remains and Unknowns are still alive.
The referendum took place in 2016. Those who have died since then will be primarily those aged 80 and over at the time. Those people were born on or before 1936. They were not boomers, they're the prior generations and they were Remain voters.
People forget that the Boomer generation is very large and will be around for many years. Claims that they are dying off rapidly is a bit of a misapprehension,.
The political omerta on this is going to break down sooner or later. Probably after the next GE.
A tough flu season this winter with 8 week GP waiting lists could see it go to 60/25.
Having watched PMQs yesterday, we should all be clear that any issues that anyone may be having in the NHS is 100% the fault of Starmer. If only he wasn't taking all that money from the unions on strike everything would be better. Its HIS fault.
So vote Conservative to fix the NHS by refusing to negotiate with the workshy feckless strikers. If these so-called Doctors don't want to work, we should just fire them and let someone else take their job.
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
If Farage really has evidence that Coutts closed his account because of his beliefs and not for commercial - or other - reasons, then he should be getting a good equality lawyer writing an opinion (much as Joanna Cherry MP did) pointing out that this would be a breach of the Equality Act and asking the bank to comply with the law, failing which legal action would follow etc.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
Which protected characteristic do you think is in play? I am not seeing one unless it was purely a political decision. Which, of course, they would not admit.
The only one that might come into play is the "belief" one. But reputational risk is something banks are obliged - and would be wise - to take into account when assessing whether or not to take or or keep a customer. I can think of numerous occasions when I have had to point out information about potential or actual customers ( involvement in investigations / court cases) to those making such assessments. Reputational harm - if it was the reason - is not a breach, IMO but an equality lawyer would know better, of the Equality Act.
At some point the political class will have to engage with this. In a democracy people can change their mind.
Surely not until we have polling wich suggests a clear wish to rejoin with a clear idea of the terms on offer, particularly with respect to the Euro. These polls however interesting do not of course do this. For clarification I would support rejoining but would wish that to include joining the Euro.
Yes I wouldn't want to rush into it because it needs to be emphatic to put this damn issue to bed, but even I am quite astonished at how steadily and remorselessly opinion is turning against Brexit. Who knew the British public possessed such an abundance of common sense?
A significant contribution must come from Leave voters who have died since the vote in 2016. I've lost a number of family members since then, all of whom voted Leave for various reasons. All of the Remains and Unknowns are still alive.
That's the thing about leavers; they've stopped making them.
In the yougov poll 18% of those voting Leave in 2016 would now vote to Rejoin. So there are switchers as well as those pushing up daisies.
Just seen this but with no indication of the terms it is not very helpful.
How is that different from the leave campaign ?
The fault for that one lies with the Remain supporting PM who thought that by keeping things vague he could hustle people into voting to stay in the EU. There is a certain amount of pleasure to be gained from the fact it turned round and bit him.
The political omerta on this is going to break down sooner or later. Probably after the next GE.
A tough flu season this winter with 8 week GP waiting lists could see it go to 60/25.
Having watched PMQs yesterday, we should all be clear that any issues that anyone may be having in the NHS is 100% the fault of Starmer. If only he wasn't taking all that money from the unions on strike everything would be better. Its HIS fault.
So vote Conservative to fix the NHS by refusing to negotiate with the workshy feckless strikers. If these so-called Doctors don't want to work, we should just fire them and let someone else take their job.
LOTOQs
Yes! And Donkey didn't answer Rishi's excellent question despite being asked twice.
Comments
Their correspondent seems to have been briefed what appears to be an untrue account, and given the source, not unsurprisingly reported it.
Without commenting directly on that - journalists tend not to burn their sources - they reported what everyone else has been saying about it.
It's embarrassing for them, but I don't think they acted so badly over the affair.
Nat West, on the other hand...
'Brexit cited' in the URL is also misleading if you read the article, as it's only an anonymous official supposedly commenting on the UK's request for clarification:
'"We cannot issue a statement on their behalf.
“The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.”
The EU official added that “the Argentines have spun it in a certain way”.'
https://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2023/07/19/johnny-and-oppie/
A fascinating character; someone who was one of the first generation of black-hat Internet hackers, and paid the price. After release from prison, h became a white-hat (good) hacker.
As someone on Twitter says: Both Heaven and Hell have hopefully installed two-factor Authentication"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick
https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/las-vegas-nv/kevin-mitnick-11371668
"Takedown" is a brilliant book about the pursuit of him, and his capture.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/19/bank-chief-evening-with-bbc-journalist-farage-tweet-claim/
I think Farage has a reasonable general point on the opaqueness of banks' processes to cancel customer accounts, but I don't think
he's a particularly egregious case.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1681919261646766082?s=20
Which makes their apparently dishonest briefing about it particularly stupid.
I have not seen the entire dossier. Has anyone? Maybe it is not as clear cut as he is claiming? Curious that such a dossier has been made public too. Who did this?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/09/jeremy-hunt-reveals-he-was-refused-monzo-account
If the great and the good are so worried about having bank accounts then serve them right - they shouldn't have let the banks close so many branches and so deny banking to many people. I'm currently stuck in an account with less than 0.5% interest because the online website tells me "write to your branch" which the buggers closed some years ago - waiting on the results of a letter to a branch 10 miles away.
Is the UK government tacking back to conflict with the EU in a desperate attempt to get a few votes, having decided that the more cooperative tone they recently tried wasn't helping their polling?
And many people died before that in the war itself.
Both rather important.
I think this is the first poll with a majority for Rejoin:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/07/18/britons-would-vote-rejoin-eu
That person might well be Alexander Boris de pfeffel Johnson
This is likely another instance of activist staff, in his ejection from one side and the leaking from another side, and I find it frankly a bit of a joke that people who work for companies now seem to be so up their own backsides about their personal opinions being more important than the functioning of legal business activity.
If the bank you work for takes on a client and that client generates their wealth from legal activity then you either suck it up or leave and find an “ethical bank” to work for because one day you will find, if you think it’s ok to kick off and stop clients you disagree with, that someone in your bank will find someone you agree with to be disagreeable and you won’t like it but ultimately it’s your own fault.
Arms dealing, Oil, gambling, adult entertainment, shooting estates, airlines - all businesses where people will have personal problems with their activities but perfectly legal. Are activist staff going to start demanding their company stops running their accounts because if they don’t get banking then lots of people in the UK will lose their jobs including the activist staff when the bank loses the revenue and has to make redundancies.
A tough flu season this winter with 8 week GP waiting lists could see it go to 60/25.
Though of course we voted to Brexit without knowing the terms.
Someone on Twitter posted a picture of his business card, which looks like an Airfix model card of lock picks
https://www.mitnicksecurity.com/kevin-mitnicks-famous-lockpick-business-card
RIP.
Just heard there's a horse faire/gypsy event being held nearby, unexpectedly. Six thousand are anticipated. Businesses have been advised by police to get extra security, and plenty of them (especially pubs) have just closed.
How marvellous.
https://www.addleshawgoddard.com/en/insights/insights-briefings/2019/employment/employment-up-to-date-april-2019/mceleny-v-mod/
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-c-mceleny-v-ministry-of-defence-4105347-2017
[Edit} Mod vetting allegedly had, inter aliis, "asked numerous questions about his mental health and his views on issues such as Trident, Irish politics and Rangers Football Club."
If you think of it in terms of predicting the result of a Brejoin vote, definitely. (Though the key thing there is that the polls will continue to move, one direction of movement seems way more likely than the other but who knows how things will look in a decade?)
But a lot of politics is way more about vibes than that. And the vibes are that the UK increasingly doesn't like the path that it chose to go down between 2016 and 2020. And the Conservatives, if nobody else, will eventually need that to go away, because everyone knows that that they are the ones who led us this way.
How unpopular does a big policy have to be before it is jettisoned, even if the alternatives are unpalatable? Twenty-five percent support? Twenty? Ten?
They would get their name published front and centre as a liar.
On engaging to the point of rejoining that will take more time, andci suspect we'll be willing to consider it long before the EU is willing to agree it - any significant anti EU parties and it would be too risky.
I’ve been informally told that the attempt to close their accounts wasn’t a bank policy as such (the bank in question handles accounts for several primary arms manufacturers) but an employee who decided to add a flag.
One with a Russian passport.
If an incoming government banned cash transactions it would make tax free, VAT free, tradesman hobbles far more difficult to execute. The grey economy would collapse and tax take would be substantially improve overnight.
It would also be a bit of a head scratcher for low level drug dealers, top drawer gangsters and illegal car wash businesses, oh and Turkish barbers.
People forget that the Boomer generation is very large and will be around for many years. Claims that they are dying off rapidly is a bit of a misapprehension,.
So vote Conservative to fix the NHS by refusing to negotiate with the workshy feckless strikers. If these so-called Doctors don't want to work, we should just fire them and let someone else take their job.
Yes! And Donkey didn't answer Rishi's excellent question despite being asked twice.