Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
And also to drink some of their wine. You couldn't grow grapes like that in the UK.
Actually, Mr. Glenn I think you can, and better. Please try the Ridgeview and Bolney wines from Sussex. They are a damn sight more expensive I grant you, but they knock the spots off anything from NZ, and anything from France in their price range.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
They don't, far more Brits emigrate to Australia than New Zealand, which has a higher gdp per capita and better weather than both us and the Kiwis while still keeping the same language and most of the same culture. New Zealand is basically rural and suburban UK minus London, probably the closest nation to the UK of any on earth, so whether moving there really counts as emigration is debateable
I lived in Christchurch for a year. Best climate of anywhere that I know. Dry and sunny all year round, with hot summer days and frosty days in winter that warm up to t shirt weather by lunchtime. It rains a few days a month, but rarely more than 2 days in a row. Nelson and Gisborne are even better. Wellington is famously windy, and Auckland is nearly subtropical. More Rain but clears quickly.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
Australia is more popular for migrants as salaries are higher than the UK, while NZ are about the same as here. Of Australian cities I really rate Adelaide for climate and general ambience.
I've heard that there is a particular negative psychological effect from the weather in Christchurch, something to do with the winds blowing over the mountains or something, have you heard about that ?
You'd get referendums to leave popping up all over, in the secure knowledge that's how you get the EU to offer you a great deal in order to stay.
IIRC, Boris Johnson actually stated that his ideal was to use a Leave decision as a lever to get a better Remain deal.
it will be very hard to anyone crawling back to be credible - they said he was crap at his job, not that his ideas were bad and he couldn't win among the members, so him beating them is no reason to accept a job back, their belief he would lead them to disaster would still apply.
Not so sure they wouldn't be credible. It is arguably the PLP's duty to warn the membership of their fears about GE chances. Having done so, if the members are determined to stick with Mr Corbyn, then the MPs may consider it their duty to try to make it work.
Except they are claiming they already tried to make it work, and when it didn't they resigned. How many more goes are they planning to try to make it work?
A good point, but they were resigning in order to try to dislodge him, so I do think another go at working with him is justified if that's what the members really, really want. It may mean that those who opt to return to the Shadow Cabinet will try to set a different working relationship with him.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
If the weather in NZ is so continuously awful how do they manage to make some really jolly good wines? We regularly take a very nice NZ Sauvignon Blanc at £6.50 a bottle, which of far better quality for the price than anything one can get from Europe or even Australia.
I rather think that the original comment that New Zealand is "cold, miserable and it always rains." Is just plain bollocks from a serial moaner.
Maybe it was on Ozzie TV because it was unusually awful? Or the Ozzie's just enjoy making NZ out to be a wet and windy place. I wasn't there long enough to tell.
Edit/ on the wine-making, NZ is on a latitude that means the sun will be hot, when it's out. I rather suspect they have less need for irrigation than the Australian vineyards...
New Zealand is the wettest I've ever been. Got caught in a horizontal thunderstorm and ended up sheltering behind my horse on the lee side of a cairn
Crikey, Mr, Charles, have done that sort of thing on Dartmoor many times. To say nothing of the Lake District, the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
It's not a new thing, more that the Internet clarifies it. Most people don't think things, they feel them. People are drowning in content, so they don't fact check, analyse and reflect.
I've had otherwise intelligent people tell me that a 2.1% shortfall over 14 years represents an economic calamity (their words, not mine). It's very odd when people are so emotionally invested in the idea of an entity (e.g. EU, NHS, the Labour party itself).
3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship
That reads like an obscurantist way of saying 'no change'. For example what would a fast track to residency mean? If you're living and working in a country, you're a resident immediately. There's no need to fast-track anything.
For mean personally, the idea that a French person would need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to acquire the right to live in the UK or vice versa is akin to barbarism.
There's a massive difference between permanent and temporary residency.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
And also to drink some of their wine. You couldn't grow grapes like that in the UK.
Actually, Mr. Glenn I think you can, and better. Please try the Ridgeview and Bolney wines from Sussex. They are a damn sight more expensive I grant you, but they knock the spots off anything from NZ, and anything from France in their price range.
Ok I'll give them a try. Bolney categorising their website by 'still' and 'sparkling' doesn't inspire though.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship
That reads like an obscurantist way of saying 'no change'. For example what would a fast track to residency mean? If you're living and working in a country, you're a resident immediately. There's no need to fast-track anything.
For mean personally, the idea that a French person would need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to acquire the right to live in the UK or vice versa is akin to barbarism.
I do understand that for many Europeans the US is a barbaric country. It seems you lump Canada, NZ and Australia, indeed most of the rest of the world, in that category too.
(Permanent) residency means you have certain rights that merely living in a country does not confer, but still short of those of a full citizen.
It is hardly no change to require that those coming have a job offer or the means and intent to invest in Britain.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Did they also say they wanted to leave because they didn't want to live in a country where is are issues with racism & sexism?
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
If the weather in NZ is so continuously awful how do they manage to make some really jolly good wines? We regularly take a very nice NZ Sauvignon Blanc at £6.50 a bottle, which of far better quality for the price than anything one can get from Europe or even Australia.
I rather think that the original comment that New Zealand is "cold, miserable and it always rains." Is just plain bollocks from a serial moaner.
Maybe it was on Ozzie TV because it was unusually awful? Or the Ozzie's just enjoy making NZ out to be a wet and windy place. I wasn't there long enough to tell.
Edit/ on the wine-making, NZ is on a latitude that means the sun will be hot, when it's out. I rather suspect they have less need for irrigation than the Australian vineyards...
New Zealand is the wettest I've ever been. Got caught in a horizontal thunderstorm and ended up sheltering behind my horse on the lee side of a cairn
Crikey, Mr, Charles, have done that sort of thing on Dartmoor many times. To say nothing of the Lake District, the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia.
I'm sure I could get equally wet in the UK.
Galway was the second wettest - only a steady drizzle but it started when I had just ridden for 3 hours out from my home base. Scotland was dry but muddy as I wandered into a peat bog and had to dismount to free my steed.
Iceland was smelly and desolate and Estonia had the prettiest girls
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Honestly? I thought the whole point of a 'points-based immigration system' was that it was something no-one could really disagree with. You could disagree with how the points should be allocated and what the thresholds should be - but that's an argument for further down the road. A call for a 'points-based immigration system' is, at the levels of details it's been discussed in the UK )i.e. not much) surely just a statement that you are going to use some sort of methodology for deciding which immigrants you allow to legally enter the country. Are there honestly people - apart from Jeremy Corbyn - who think this is unreasonable? What is their preferred approach?
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Thick, stupid Remainers.
As the old joke goes them leaving will raise the average IQ in both countries.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
And indeed IN THE EU. Which, at one time, appeared to be the point.
3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship
That reads like an obscurantist way of saying 'no change'. For example what would a fast track to residency mean? If you're living and working in a country, you're a resident immediately. There's no need to fast-track anything.
For mean personally, the idea that a French person would need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to acquire the right to live in the UK or vice versa is akin to barbarism.
I do understand that for many Europeans the US is a barbaric country. It seems you lump Canada, NZ and Australia, indeed most of the rest of the world, in that category too.
(Permanent) residency means you have certain rights that merely living in a country does not confer, but still short of those of a full citizen.
It is hardly no change to require that those coming have a job offer or the means and intent to invest in Britain.
No, I was talking specifically about the UK and France - the two historic, democratic nation states of Europe. Anything with diminishes the respective rights of our citizens is a very unwelcome development and should be fought against.
As a Brexiteer, I am happy that no-one in Europe is trying to undo the result by pushing for a second referendum and are treating its results as irreversible. See this story which states that "Merkel said she regretted the "irreversible" Brexit decision."
But it does get me wondering why, after time and time again urging other electorates to vote until they get the right result, the EU is not pursuing that approach with the UK. Do PBers think that it is because the Eurocrats truly believe that a USE is more achievable without the UK in the fold? But how does that account for Merkel's comments?
I realise that the conceit that the EU are absolute dictators and all its members merely hapless puppets is an idee fixe on PB.com, but it might just possibly be that the EU didn't urge other electorates to vote again: that in fact the member state government asked for a better deal, got it, and resubmitted that modified deal to the people. That was the case for the treaties of Nice and Lisbon in Ireland.
I'm not expecting a second deal with the UK nor a second referendum, for the same reasons I outlined a few days after the vote: nobody in the UK is seeking one, and without a request for a better deal the EU can't offer one because they don't know what to offer.
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Honestly? I thought the whole point of a 'points-based immigration system' was that it was something no-one could really disagree with. You could disagree with how the points should be allocated and what the thresholds should be - but that's an argument for further down the road. A call for a 'points-based immigration system' is, at the levels of details it's been discussed in the UK )i.e. not much) surely just a statement that you are going to use some sort of methodology for deciding which immigrants you allow to legally enter the country. Are there honestly people - apart from Jeremy Corbyn - who think this is unreasonable? What is their preferred approach?
For tech companies and start ups its too slow. However, this is all part of the 'oh my God, it's all too complicated, let's not bother' school of thought.
The UK is a high complexity economy. We need to think through our immigration system carefully so we have the flexibility business needs and the control the electorate wants.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
Plus in the Euro, though Enda Kenny is rather less hip than Justin Trudeau and Dublin is a great city but not quite Toronto or Montreal!
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Of course, only about a third of immigrants to Australia come on the points system. There are also (to list a subset of immigration options):
1. People who come through family connections, or because they have ancestors with Australian citizenship. 2. People who come in through the system for quotas for specific professions. 3. Those on inter-corporate transfers. 4. Refugees. 5. New Zealanders.
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Trump's best chance to wrong-foot Hillary is to avoid any mention of the scandals that she's prepping to defend in the debates and instead adopt his moderate Apprentice persona saying in the nicest possible way that Hillary's time has passed and she isn't what America needs right now.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Of course, only about a third of immigrants to Australia come on the points system. There are also (to list a subset of immigration options):
1. People who come through family connections, or because they have ancestors with Australian citizenship. 2. People who come in through the system for quotas for specific professions. 3. Those on inter-corporate transfers. 4. Refugees. 5. New Zealanders.
The UK has the exceptional talent visa quota (only 1k p.a.), and what I call the rich bastard visa. There will be all manner of schemes.
3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship
That reads like an obscurantist way of saying 'no change'. For example what would a fast track to residency mean? If you're living and working in a country, you're a resident immediately. There's no need to fast-track anything.
For mean personally, the idea that a French person would need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to acquire the right to live in the UK or vice versa is akin to barbarism.
I do understand that for many Europeans the US is a barbaric country. It seems you lump Canada, NZ and Australia, indeed most of the rest of the world, in that category too.
(Permanent) residency means you have certain rights that merely living in a country does not confer, but still short of those of a full citizen.
It is hardly no change to require that those coming have a job offer or the means and intent to invest in Britain.
No, I was talking specifically about the UK and France - the two historic, democratic nation states of Europe. Anything with diminishes the respective rights of our citizens is a very unwelcome development and should be fought against.
But in order, given France's intent to remain for the moment a member of the EU, to retain existing rights of French citizens re residence and work in the UK, those same rights have to be extended to all EU citizens.
Personally, having lived in six foreign countries, including France, I have never found the paperwork that daunting. And the paperwork in France was more burdensome than that of either Switzerland or the US.
Being required to fill out one or two forms has never struck me as the definition of barbarism. If it is yours, I suggest you need to get out a bit more.
Ironically, one of the bright spots of this whole thing is that the Brexit department is consulting with various groups to find out what they do actually want. It's bureaucratic, but it's good technique.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
And also to drink some of their wine. You couldn't grow grapes like that in the UK.
Actually, Mr. Glenn I think you can, and better. Please try the Ridgeview and Bolney wines from Sussex. They are a damn sight more expensive I grant you, but they knock the spots off anything from NZ, and anything from France in their price range.
Ok I'll give them a try. Bolney categorising their website by 'still' and 'sparkling' doesn't inspire though.
I know the families of both vineyards (lovely, genuine and dedicated people) but have no financial interest in in either. So I am not trying to push anything other than a genuine recommendation for some rather good wine. You might be able to find some of the Bolney wines in your nearest Waitrose - I can in mine, but that might be a local thing.
The Ridgeview: well, I managed to convince AlanBrooke, gent of this parish, to try it instead of the Nyetimber and he graciously conceded that it was superior. It has also been served at a state banquet for President Obama/
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Of course, only about a third of immigrants to Australia come on the points system. There are also (to list a subset of immigration options):
1. People who come through family connections, or because they have ancestors with Australian citizenship. 2. People who come in through the system for quotas for specific professions. 3. Those on inter-corporate transfers. 4. Refugees. 5. New Zealanders.
The UK has the exceptional talent visa quota (only 1k p.a.), and what I call the rich bastard visa. There will be all manner of schemes.
Exactly, immigration is complex. No country on earth *just* has a 'points based system'. And I don't any country on earth even gets half its immigrants through one.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Of course, only about a third of immigrants to Australia come on the points system. There are also (to list a subset of immigration options):
1. People who come through family connections, or because they have ancestors with Australian citizenship. 2. People who come in through the system for quotas for specific professions. 3. Those on inter-corporate transfers. 4. Refugees. 5. New Zealanders.
The UK has the exceptional talent visa quota (only 1k p.a.), and what I call the rich bastard visa. There will be all manner of schemes.
Exactly, immigration is complex. No country on earth *just* has a 'points based system'. And I don't any country on earth even gets half its immigrants through one.
(Also, I forgot students from the list.)
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship
That reads like an obscurantist way of saying 'no change'. For example what would a fast track to residency mean? If you're living and working in a country, you're a resident immediately. There's no need to fast-track anything.
For mean personally, the idea that a French person would need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to acquire the right to live in the UK or vice versa is akin to barbarism.
I do understand that for many Europeans the US is a barbaric country. It seems you lump Canada, NZ and Australia, indeed most of the rest of the world, in that category too.
(Permanent) residency means you have certain rights that merely living in a country does not confer, but still short of those of a full citizen.
It is hardly no change to require that those coming have a job offer or the means and intent to invest in Britain.
No, I was talking specifically about the UK and France - the two historic, democratic nation states of Europe. Anything with diminishes the respective rights of our citizens is a very unwelcome development and should be fought against.
But in order, given France's intent to remain for the moment a member of the EU, to retain existing rights of French citizens re residence and work in the UK, those same rights have to be extended to all EU citizens.
Which 48% + a percentage who wanted to Leave for the EFTA/EEA option just voted for so you're in the minority there.
Ironically, one of the bright spots of this whole thing is that the Brexit department is consulting with various groups to find out what they do actually want. It's bureaucratic, but it's good technique.
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Yes, the first debate will probably prove the most important event of the entire election campaign, if Hillary wins she kills Trump stone dead, if Trump wins and especially if he wins big the presidential race will go to the wire
As a Brexiteer, I am happy that no-one in Europe is trying to undo the result by pushing for a second referendum and are treating its results as irreversible. See this story which states that "Merkel said she regretted the "irreversible" Brexit decision."
But it does get me wondering why, after time and time again urging other electorates to vote until they get the right result, the EU is not pursuing that approach with the UK. Do PBers think that it is because the Eurocrats truly believe that a USE is more achievable without the UK in the fold? But how does that account for Merkel's comments?
I think it's important to remember that the major reason there were re-votes in previous referendum was because there were referendum on constitutional change that were approved by 18 of 20 members (or thereabouts), and you you therefore had 90% of the bloc wanting something and the other 10% against. Can you blame them, then, for trying to find the compromise that got the other 10% to agree?
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
It reminds them of Wales?
I've not been, although it's on my list of places to visit. I was however in Australia during their Autumn, where it was almost always hot and sunny, and recall that the dreadful weather in NZ was often news on Ozzie TV
There's more to life than weather. New Zealand has always looked magnificent to my eyes: if I wasn't British, I'd rather like to be a New Zealander. Plus, they speak English (massive plus for me and for other monoglots) and if your more into the outdoors than the cultural high life it has obvious attractions.
However, I don't understand particularly why Britons dismayed by the vote to leave the EU would emigrate there. Surely they are aware that New Zealand isn't in the EU, either? Canada has apparently seen a similar surge of interest. I would have thought the places that most Europhiles might be keen to emigrate to should Britain leave the EU might be a tad more, er, European. But apparently not.
I know someone who wanted to emigrate to Australia as the thought of the UK adopting a points based immigration system horrified them.
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
Honestly? I thought the whole point of a 'points-based immigration system' was that it was something no-one could really disagree with. You could disagree with how the points should be allocated and what the thresholds should be - but that's an argument for further down the road. A call for a 'points-based immigration system' is, at the levels of details it's been discussed in the UK )i.e. not much) surely just a statement that you are going to use some sort of methodology for deciding which immigrants you allow to legally enter the country. Are there honestly people - apart from Jeremy Corbyn - who think this is unreasonable? What is their preferred approach?
From what I gather a points-based immigration system is in their opinion racist. They are are completely unaware that the UK currently has such a system for non EEA immigration. It is kind of weird that people who hold such strong views have never bothered to read up on it.
I put it down to the iPhone generation consuming their news in soundbites. Actually picking up a book or reading a piece of research is far too time consuming.
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship
That reads like an obscurantist way of saying 'no change'. For example what would a fast track to residency mean? If you're living and working in a country, you're a resident immediately. There's no need to fast-track anything.
For mean personally, the idea that a French person would need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to acquire the right to live in the UK or vice versa is akin to barbarism.
I do understand that for many Europeans the US is a barbaric country. It seems you lump Canada, NZ and Australia, indeed most of the rest of the world, in that category too.
(Permanent) residency means you have certain rights that merely living in a country does not confer, but still short of those of a full citizen.
It is hardly no change to require that those coming have a job offer or the means and intent to invest in Britain.
No, I was talking specifically about the UK and France - the two historic, democratic nation states of Europe. Anything with diminishes the respective rights of our citizens is a very unwelcome development and should be fought against.
But in order, given France's intent to remain for the moment a member of the EU, to retain existing rights of French citizens re residence and work in the UK, those same rights have to be extended to all EU citizens.
Which 48% + a percentage who wanted to Leave for the EFTA/EEA option just voted for so you're in the minority there.
LOL.
You can make that same fallacious argument for anything that remoaners want. It is fallacious because you forgot to subtract the x % of those who voted Remain who do actually want some control of the border back. And because we have two unknowns in that equation, neither you nor I know which position in is in the majority.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
Ireland can be a bit awkward if you are obviously British: living there is different from holidaying. If I was minded to emigrate (i think I'm a bit too old now, tbh) it would have to be somewhere with a space programme: so that's mostly US, Russia, China, India, Japan, France
If I had my time again and had a greater wallet and facility for languages, I would have loved to live in Japan, even if only for a little while. It's batshit crazy, but my kind of batshit crazy.
If Scotland does split, I'd idly consider Scotland, although to what degree of seriousness is unknown.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
Ireland can be a bit awkward if you are obviously British: living there is different from holidaying. If I was minded to emigrate (i think I'm a bit too old now, tbh) it would have to be somewhere with a space programme: so that's mostly US, Russia, China, India, Japan, France
If I had my time again and had a greater wallet and facility for languages, I would have loved to live in Japan, even if only for a little while. It's batshit crazy, but my kind of batshit crazy.
If Scotland does split, I'd idly consider Scotland, although to what degree of seriousness is unknown.
'Have to be somewhere with a space programme?' Considering Mars then?
For tech companies and start ups its too slow. However, this is all part of the 'oh my God, it's all too complicated, let's not bother' school of thought.
The UK is a high complexity economy. We need to think through our immigration system carefully so we have the flexibility business needs and the control the electorate wants.
Mr. M., Once we have back control of who we can sling out the whole thing can be resolved very easily - work permits. A work permit would grant the holder the right to reside and work in the UK for a defined period. They would be granted only on the offer of a certain job (which can be hedged around by guarantees provided pre-entry by the employer) with no access to public funds except for emergency care.
The holders of such a permit would not be an immigrant, merely a guest worker. Just as I was when I worked abroad. Treat students much the same (responsibility on the University).
Lo and behold immigration would be down to less than 100,000 p.a. very quickly.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
They don't, far more Brits emigrate to Australia than New Zealand, which has a higher gdp per capita and better weather than both us and the Kiwis while still keeping the same language and most of the same culture. New Zealand is basically rural and suburban UK minus London, probably the closest nation to the UK of any on earth, so whether moving there really counts as emigration is debateable
I lived in Christchurch for a year. Best climate of anywhere that I know. Dry and sunny all year round, with hot summer days and frosty days in winter that warm up to t shirt weather by lunchtime. It rains a few days a month, but rarely more than 2 days in a row. Nelson and Gisborne are even better. Wellington is famously windy, and Auckland is nearly subtropical. More Rain but clears quickly.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
Australia is more popular for migrants as salaries are higher than the UK, while NZ are about the same as here. Of Australian cities I really rate Adelaide for climate and general ambience.
I've heard that there is a particular negative psychological effect from the weather in Christchurch, something to do with the winds blowing over the mountains or something, have you heard about that ?
The prevailind wind in NZ is from the North west. This makes the West coast spectacularly verdent and green, but also very wet. It rains very heavily on this coast, but then the winds go up the Southern Alps, feeding the West coast glaciers and the rivers on the East coast. As most of Canterbury and Otago are in this rainshadow there is little rain on the East coast. Every couple of weeks brings a Southerly and it goes grey and drizzly for a couple of days. The heat is rarely uncomfortable (unlike Australia where it often is).
The North Island is more moxed as less mountainous but the East coast has a similar climate as does the Bay of Plenty. New Zealanders regularly vote Nelson on SI the best place to live, it has lemon trees, beaches, national parks and a dry climate as well as an amiable countercultural vibe.
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
Mr. M., Once we have back control of who we can sling out the whole thing can be resolved very easily - work permits. A work permit would grant the holder the right to reside and work in the UK for a defined period. They would be granted only on the offer of a certain job (which can be hedged around by guarantees provided pre-entry by the employer) with no access to public funds except for emergency care.
The holders of such a permit would not be an immigrant, merely a guest worker. Just as I was when I worked abroad. Treat students much the same (responsibility on the University).
Lo and behold immigration would be down to less than 100,000 p.a. very quickly.
'Fraid not. An immigrant is defined as someone planning to stay here for more than one year (which is why students make up such a huge chunk of the numbers).
1. No UK payments to the EU budget period 2. No incorporation of EU law into British law; supremacy of UK courts 3. Modified freedom of movement (reciprocal for EU citizens in UK/UK citizens in EU) - grandfathering for those already in the country/EU - anyone with a valid job offer or intending to invest in a new business gets automatic work visa - other rules at discretion of EU/UK but might include fast track to residency/citizenship 4. FTA on manufactured goods and parts 5. Services - I am not sure what we could or should be asking for here. Clearly at least as good as the Swiss/Canadians/US.
1. There will be some payments. There is a budget for EFTA, and it is paid by Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, etc. There is a budget for NAFTA, and Canada, the US and Mexico all pay into it. There is a budget for Mercusor, etc.
Now, the sums are usually an order of magnitude less that those that we pay historically to the EU. But I think the idea that you can take advantage of the infrastructure of the EU/EEA without paying something is deluded.
2. If you sign up to NAFTA, you accept the supremacy of ISDS tribunals, similarly for the TPP agreements that Australia, Japan and New Zealand signed with the US. EFTA has a court in Luxembourg to arbitrate on single market disputes between countries.
Every single free trade agreement contains some binding dispute resolution system that has supremacy to local law.
Now, there are degrees. The EU is clearly very invasive. NAFTA somewhat less so (although it did prevent, for example, the Quebec government restricting GMOs as it infringed on the access of US seeds into the Canadian market). EFTA/EEA is less invasive yet. But a free trade agreement by its very nature is denuding of sovereignty.
4 & 5. The issue with this is that they directly counter 2. The whole point about a single margin in goods and services is that it prevents local governments from implementing (democratic) restrictions on who or how things may be provided.
Let me give you the example of NAFTA: you can't use product standards to restrict access to your market. And this is particularly relevant in the case of services.
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
As a matter of interest, how many jobs for Brits have you created?
For tech companies and start ups its too slow. However, this is all part of the 'oh my God, it's all too complicated, let's not bother' school of thought.
The UK is a high complexity economy. We need to think through our immigration system carefully so we have the flexibility business needs and the control the electorate wants.
Mr. M., Once we have back control of who we can sling out the whole thing can be resolved very easily - work permits. A work permit would grant the holder the right to reside and work in the UK for a defined period. They would be granted only on the offer of a certain job (which can be hedged around by guarantees provided pre-entry by the employer) with no access to public funds except for emergency care.
The holders of such a permit would not be an immigrant, merely a guest worker. Just as I was when I worked abroad. Treat students much the same (responsibility on the University).
Lo and behold immigration would be down to less than 100,000 p.a. very quickly.
I'm relaxed about immigration in principle. I've often made the point that we might decide that even higher levels of immigration are necessary. As long as we have control over who comes, who stays and can remove undesirables, that would be fine by me. I'm assuming, of course, that we'd have carried out the necessary reforms to health, welfare and planning systems.
Freedom of movement was obsolescent after 2004, and Merkel's unilateral decision to import the Middle East to Germany killed it for me. Unlike politicians I can look ten years ahead.
the loathsome Article 50 we are now enacting is in Lisbon
I'm struggling. What's so loathsome about Article 50?
Here's the text:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Mr. M., Once we have back control of who we can sling out the whole thing can be resolved very easily - work permits. A work permit would grant the holder the right to reside and work in the UK for a defined period. They would be granted only on the offer of a certain job (which can be hedged around by guarantees provided pre-entry by the employer) with no access to public funds except for emergency care.
The holders of such a permit would not be an immigrant, merely a guest worker. Just as I was when I worked abroad. Treat students much the same (responsibility on the University).
Lo and behold immigration would be down to less than 100,000 p.a. very quickly.
'Fraid not. An immigrant is defined as someone planning to stay here for more than one year (which is why students make up such a huge chunk of the numbers).
The students incoming should (in theory) be matched by students finishing their course and emigrating though.
Why do Brits want to emigrate to New Zealand ? It is cold, miserable and it always rains.
They don't, far more Brits emigrate to Australia than New Zealand, which has a higher gdp per capita and better weather than both us and the Kiwis while still keeping the same language and most of the same culture. New Zealand is basically rural and suburban UK minus London, probably the closest nation to the UK of any on earth, so whether moving there really counts as emigration is debateable
I lived in Christchurch for a year. Best climate of anywhere that I know. Dry and sunny all year round, with hot summer days and frosty days in winter that warm up to t shirt weather by lunchtime. It rains a few days a month, but rarely more than 2 days in a row. Nelson and Gisborne are even better. Wellington is famously windy, and Auckland is nearly subtropical. More Rain but clears quickly.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
Australia is more popular for migrants as salaries are higher than the UK, while NZ are about the same as here. Of Australian cities I really rate Adelaide for climate and general ambience.
I've heard that there is a particular negative psychological effect from the weather in Christchurch, something to do with the winds blowing over the mountains or something, have you heard about that ?
The prevailind wind in NZ is from the North west. This makes the West coast spectacularly verdent and green, but also very wet. It rains very heavily on this coast, but then the winds go up the Southern Alps, feeding the West coast glaciers and the rivers on the East coast. As most of Canterbury and Otago are in this rainshadow there is little rain on the East coast. Every couple of weeks brings a Southerly and it goes grey and drizzly for a couple of days. The heat is rarely uncomfortable (unlike Australia where it often is).
The North Island is more moxed as less mountainous but the East coast has a similar climate as does the Bay of Plenty. New Zealanders regularly vote Nelson on SI the best place to live, it has lemon trees, beaches, national parks and a dry climate as well as an amiable countercultural vibe.
Yep, my brother lives in Nelson. It's a fine spot. I also like it down in Canterbry as a visitor. It's a tough old place to live. Produces rock hard rugby players.
the loathsome Article 50 we are now enacting is in Lisbon
I'm struggling. What's so loathsome about Article 50?
Here's the text:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Genuinely: what's so loathsome about that?
According to the author it was drafted with that two year limit in order to make it impractical for any member to actually withdraw.
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
Ireland can be a bit awkward if you are obviously British: living there is different from holidaying. If I was minded to emigrate (i think I'm a bit too old now, tbh) it would have to be somewhere with a space programme: so that's mostly US, Russia, China, India, Japan, France
If I had my time again and had a greater wallet and facility for languages, I would have loved to live in Japan, even if only for a little while. It's batshit crazy, but my kind of batshit crazy.
If Scotland does split, I'd idly consider Scotland, although to what degree of seriousness is unknown.
Scotland's not going to split. Brexit makes it near impossible. A fine irony.
I don't think Scotland will split, but not because of Brexit per se: it's simply that, when push comes to shove, they just don't want to leave the UK. I understand there are many Scots who wish to secede, but regardless of their undoubted passion and conviction they are not in a majority.
Brexit may tilt the balance if the UK economy craters post-Brexit and it becomes in Scotland's economic interest to do so. But unless things really go ka-ka, that's not going to happen.
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
As a matter of interest, how many jobs for Brits have you created?
None, although I have managed many....and your point is ?
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
As a matter of interest, how many jobs for Brits have you created?
How many times have you sold a company rather than grow it into a beautiful example of businesses flourishing under stable long term ownership?
The students incoming should (in theory) be matched by students finishing their course and emigrating though.
Eventually, yes, but not while universities are expanding.
There is a question about how many students stay here at the end of their studies. When I was researching this, I found it very hard to get any decent statistics on that (the presentation of the ONS migration figures can charitably be described as abysmal).
the loathsome Article 50 we are now enacting is in Lisbon
I'm struggling. What's so loathsome about Article 50?
Here's the text:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Genuinely: what's so loathsome about that?
According to the author it was drafted with that two year limit in order to make it impractical for any member to actually withdraw.
Errr. But previously there weren't any provisions for a country leaving the EU, so it indisputably made it easier for a country to leave.
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Yes, the first debate will probably prove the most important event of the entire election campaign, if Hillary wins she kills Trump stone dead, if Trump wins and especially if he wins big the presidential race will go to the wire
The debates can only help by a few points here and there, if you are already way behind they can't do much.
For Trump to win he has to have a campaign, smile a lot, and keep quiet. As Trump himself put it in 1980, someone can win with no brains but a big smile:
Look today, Trump is not into any controversy so the news is all about Hillary and her 15K emails the FBI just discovered.
Hillary might have caught Trump on Google Trends, but because her email scandal is flaring again, and Trump has not done something stupid to obscure it. In this case Bad Publicity is Bad.
Mr. M., Once we have back control of who we can sling out the whole thing can be resolved very easily - work permits. A work permit would grant the holder the right to reside and work in the UK for a defined period. They would be granted only on the offer of a certain job (which can be hedged around by guarantees provided pre-entry by the employer) with no access to public funds except for emergency care.
The holders of such a permit would not be an immigrant, merely a guest worker. Just as I was when I worked abroad. Treat students much the same (responsibility on the University).
Lo and behold immigration would be down to less than 100,000 p.a. very quickly.
'Fraid not. An immigrant is defined as someone planning to stay here for more than one year (which is why students make up such a huge chunk of the numbers).
The students incoming should (in theory) be matched by students finishing their course and emigrating though.
20% of students are still resident 5 years after arriving, totalling about 50 000 per year. The other 200 000 leave by then.
That is why we talk about net migration and include students. Omitting them is just a way of fiddling the figures.
the loathsome Article 50 we are now enacting is in Lisbon
I'm struggling. What's so loathsome about Article 50?
Here's the text:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Genuinely: what's so loathsome about that?
According to the author it was drafted with that two year limit in order to make it impractical for any member to actually withdraw.
Errr. But previously there weren't any provisions for a country leaving the EU, so it indisputably made it easier for a country to leave.
I shall defer to Sean's answer. It was the only thing I could think of.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
And also to drink some of their wine. You couldn't grow grapes like that in the UK.
Actually, Mr. Glenn I think you can, and better. Please try the Ridgeview and Bolney wines from Sussex. They are a damn sight more expensive I grant you, but they knock the spots off anything from NZ, and anything from France in their price range.
Ok I'll give them a try. Bolney categorising their website by 'still' and 'sparkling' doesn't inspire though.
I know the families of both vineyards (lovely, genuine and dedicated people) but have no financial interest in in either. So I am not trying to push anything other than a genuine recommendation for some rather good wine. You might be able to find some of the Bolney wines in your nearest Waitrose - I can in mine, but that might be a local thing.
The Ridgeview: well, I managed to convince AlanBrooke, gent of this parish, to try it instead of the Nyetimber and he graciously conceded that it was superior. It has also been served at a state banquet for President Obama/
Waitrose do some good English sparkling wines in Camden.
They really are good. Many posh English hotels are now serving English sparklers as a matter of course; they have a snob value!
It's a revolution.
Thanks for that, Mr. T.. I am pleased to hear that "English sparklers" are being more widely sold but saddened that they have a snob value. That snob value (i.e. an extra £10-20 per bottle on which is already expensive product) might not be a good idea in the long run.
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
As a matter of interest, how many jobs for Brits have you created?
How many times have you sold a company rather than grow it into a beautiful example of businesses flourishing under stable long term ownership?
You know rather more about my personal financial circumstances than most on PB
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
Worst of all for the business whingers is the horrific possibility they might have to train people
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
And also to drink some of their wine. You couldn't grow grapes like that in the UK.
Actually, Mr. Glenn I think you can, and better. Please try the Ridgeview and Bolney wines from Sussex. They are a damn sight more expensive I grant you, but they knock the spots off anything from NZ, and anything from France in their price range.
Ok I'll give them a try. Bolney categorising their website by 'still' and 'sparkling' doesn't inspire though.
I know the families of both vineyards (lovely, genuine and dedicated people) but have no financial interest in in either. So I am not trying to push anything other than a genuine recommendation for some rather good wine. You might be able to find some of the Bolney wines in your nearest Waitrose - I can in mine, but that might be a local thing.
The Ridgeview: well, I managed to convince AlanBrooke, gent of this parish, to try it instead of the Nyetimber and he graciously conceded that it was superior. It has also been served at a state banquet for President Obama/
Waitrose do some good English sparkling wines in Camden.
They really are good. Many posh English hotels are now serving English sparklers as a matter of course; they have a snob value!
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
As a matter of interest, how many jobs for Brits have you created?
How many times have you sold a company rather than grow it into a beautiful example of businesses flourishing under stable long term ownership?
You know rather more about my personal financial circumstances than most on PB
Australia under Turnbull is actually perhaps slightly more liberal than the UK under May, Australia under Abbott was well to the right of the UK under Cameron by contrast. New Zealand under Key is about the same. The US is clearly moving right whether Hillary or Trump succeeds Obama but especially the latter, so if you want a liberal, pro EU, developed nation alternative to the UK that speaks English then Canada under Trudeau is your best bet for now
Or Ireland, which has the added benefit of being republican.
Ireland can be a bit awkward if you are obviously British: living there is different from holidaying. If I was minded to emigrate (i think I'm a bit too old now, tbh) it would have to be somewhere with a space programme: so that's mostly US, Russia, China, India, Japan, France
If I had my time again and had a greater wallet and facility for languages, I would have loved to live in Japan, even if only for a little while. It's batshit crazy, but my kind of batshit crazy.
If Scotland does split, I'd idly consider Scotland, although to what degree of seriousness is unknown.
'Have to be somewhere with a space programme?' Considering Mars then?
What can I tell you, I like rockets. I realise they're pyramids for the 21st century, but they're still wicked cool. We haven't produced something fuck-off-rock-hard techy impressive since Concorde (ARM chips don't count), but America, via SpaceX, Boeing, that rejected StarChaser thing, the Space Launch System, it's just churning them out. I wanted Trump to pick Newt as his VP because he wants to build a moonbase: I mean yes, he's a nutter and Trump is a shit of the first water, but, hello, moonbase?!
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Yes, the first debate will probably prove the most important event of the entire election campaign, if Hillary wins she kills Trump stone dead, if Trump wins and especially if he wins big the presidential race will go to the wire
The debates can only help by a few points here and there, if you are already way behind they can't do much.
For Trump to win he has to have a campaign, smile a lot, and keep quiet. As Trump himself put it in 1980, someone can win with no brains but a big smile:
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5VEjF1uhYo
Look today, Trump is not into any controversy so the news is all about Hillary and her 15K emails the FBI just discovered.
Hillary might have caught Trump on Google Trends, but because her email scandal is flaring again, and Trump has not done something stupid to obscure it. In this case Bad Publicity is Bad.
261 days since Hillary's last news conference. I see the media distraction from her woes is to compare Trump to a psychopath and Hitler today. It's laughable.
We had 26 visa schemes just for workers at my last count.
I'm sure that's right.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
Oh please lets stop the nonsense "companies can't bring highly qualified people in" Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
Worst of all for the business whingers is the horrific possibility they might have to train people
absolutely agree. Witness the howl of outrage at the apprentice levy.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
I could give you a laundry list of tech specialisms in the software industry. Some startups need very niche skills. Those who have those skills are generally not sat in their skivvies watching Jeremy Kyle and waiting on a call. Bluntly, I want to steal someone on a Friday and have them at work on the Monday next ( I appreciate that's a caricature).
Quite. It was designed to be so horrible no one would ever use it. Apparently the Germans objected even to the inclusion of A50, and felt that EU membership should be explicitly irreversible, but they compromised with a method so grisly it would surely never be enacted
The mad Federalist Italian cunt that wrote A50 also wants us to "suffer" for daring to use the clause he wrote
OK. So you do actually genuinely have any evidence - other than a throw away line by a failed Italian politician in a Russia Today article - that he "wrote Article 50"?
I mean, seriously.
The Lisbon Treaty is a horrible disaster, on that we both agree. But where you see conspiracy, I see merely incompetence. The idea that - in marathon negotiating sessions - that there was a secret plan to make leaving the EU near impossible by having a two year period is laughable.
Anyone who thinks NZ has a crap climate needs to get their head examined!
And also to drink some of their wine. You couldn't grow grapes like that in the UK.
Actually, Mr. Glenn I think you can, and better. Please try the Ridgeview and Bolney wines from Sussex. They are a damn sight more expensive I grant you, but they knock the spots off anything from NZ, and anything from France in their price range.
Ok I'll give them a try. Bolney categorising their website by 'still' and 'sparkling' doesn't inspire though.
I know the families of both vineyards (lovely, genuine and dedicated people) but have no financial interest in in either. So I am not trying to push anything other than a genuine recommendation for some rather good wine. You might be able to find some of the Bolney wines in your nearest Waitrose - I can in mine, but that might be a local thing.
The Ridgeview: well, I managed to convince AlanBrooke, gent of this parish, to try it instead of the Nyetimber and he graciously conceded that it was superior. It has also been served at a state banquet for President Obama/
Waitrose do some good English sparkling wines in Camden.
They really are good. Many posh English hotels are now serving English sparklers as a matter of course; they have a snob value!
It's a revolution.
Chapel Down sparking is pretty good.
This one is rather tasty too, with more body than most English sparklers.
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Yes, the first debate will probably prove the most important event of the entire election campaign, if Hillary wins she kills Trump stone dead, if Trump wins and especially if he wins big the presidential race will go to the wire
The debates can only help by a few points here and there, if you are already way behind they can't do much.
For Trump to win he has to have a campaign, smile a lot, and keep quiet. As Trump himself put it in 1980, someone can win with no brains but a big smile:
Look today, Trump is not into any controversy so the news is all about Hillary and her 15K emails the FBI just discovered.
Hillary might have caught Trump on Google Trends, but because her email scandal is flaring again, and Trump has not done something stupid to obscure it. In this case Bad Publicity is Bad.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
See the excellent piece posted on here jjust before the referendum by an exec working in London's high-tech start-up community. They need the very best immediately. Not all the very best are UK citizens, many come from other parts if Europe and they're already in London so can be employed immediately. It's that flexibility a visa system needs to retain.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
A weekly update to my 2016 average daily tracking poll:
Hillary 46.5 nc Trump 41 +0.5
Since the start on August 1st:
Hillary 46.5 46.5 47 47 44 Trump 41 40.5 41 41 41
Remarkable stability since the beginning of August. In the state polls Trump has slumped in Florida and losing more ground in Ohio, that is more significant than the national picture.
Hillary's lead has clearly narrowed a little since the DNC convention and today's Monmouth Ohio poll had Hillary ahead by 4%, Romney lost Ohio by 3%, McCain by almost 5% so Trump is presently doing a little better than McCain and a little worse than Romney (of course after Romney won the first debate he took the lead, although he failed to capitalise on it)
Those debates look more and more interesting as it appears the Democrats are shielding Mrs Clinton from the press. (Who TBH aren't exactly screaming for daily conferences).
Yes, the first debate will probably prove the most important event of the entire election campaign, if Hillary wins she kills Trump stone dead, if Trump wins and especially if he wins big the presidential race will go to the wire
The debates can only help by a few points here and there, if you are already way behind they can't do much.
For Trump to win he has to have a campaign, smile a lot, and keep quiet. As Trump himself put it in 1980, someone can win with no brains but a big smile:
Look today, Trump is not into any controversy so the news is all about Hillary and her 15K emails the FBI just discovered.
Hillary might have caught Trump on Google Trends, but because her email scandal is flaring again, and Trump has not done something stupid to obscure it. In this case Bad Publicity is Bad.
Romney was ahead wasn't he after the 1st debate?
Romney, as Trump never tires of saying, was a stiff who went AWOL in the campaign.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
so you agree. its about cheaper labour...
You didn't answer the question though.
Not cheaper labour, but more timely and better labour. Sometimes it's the difference between having a business and not having a business.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
so you agree. its about cheaper labour...
You didn't answer the question though.
Not cheaper labour, but more timely and better labour. Sometimes it's the different between having a business and not having a business.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
I was an investor in an artificial intelligence start-up whose name some of you may guess. Of the 45 or so London employees, 40 or so had PhDs. Almost everyone who earned a PhD in machine learning, worldwide, ended up on their payroll. Perhaps unsurpisingly, only a fifth of the employees were British. On the sale of this business, capital gains tax processed to HM Treasury exceeded 200m.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
See the excellent piece posted on here jjust before the referendum by an exec working in London's high-tech start-up community. They need the very best immediately. Not all the very best are UK citizens, many come from other parts if Europe and they're already in London so can be employed immediately. It's that flexibility a visa system needs to retain.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
so you agree. its about cheaper labour...
You didn't answer the question though.
Not cheaper labour, but more timely and better labour. Sometimes it's the different between having a business and not having a business.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
I could give you a laundry list of tech specialisms in the software industry. Some startups need very niche skills. Those who have those skills are generally not sat in their skivvies watching Jeremy Kyle and waiting on a call. Bluntly, I want to steal someone on a Friday and have them at work on the Monday next ( I appreciate that's a caricature).
John, I don't need a shopping list.
Give me three !
And I will give you thirty CVs...warning though you will have to pay them a living wage.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
I was an investor in an artificial intelligence start-up whose name some of you may guess. Of the 45 or so London employees, 40 or so had PhDs. Almost everyone who earned a PhD in machine learning, worldwide, ended up on their payroll. Perhaps unsurpisingly, only a fifth of the employees were British. On the sale of this business, capital gains tax processed to HM Treasury exceeded 200m.
OK. So you do actually genuinely have any evidence - other than a throw away line by a failed Italian politician in a Russia Today article - that he "wrote Article 50"?
I mean, seriously.
The Lisbon Treaty is a horrible disaster, on that we both agree. But where you see conspiracy, I see merely incompetence. The idea that - in marathon negotiating sessions - that there was a secret plan to make leaving the EU near impossible by having a two year period is laughable.
According to this piece, Article 50 was written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr:
The 262 words that frame Britain’s EU divorce came to life on a kitchen table. The date was early 2003 and the place the small Brussels flat of John Kerr, a veteran British diplomat turned secretary-general for a conclave to develop a new EU constitution.
Whoever wrote it, the conspiracy theories about the EU are tiresome in the extreme. I'm sure that little thought went into Article 50, but that's doesn't make it some evil conspiracy.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
I could give you a laundry list of tech specialisms in the software industry. Some startups need very niche skills. Those who have those skills are generally not sat in their skivvies watching Jeremy Kyle and waiting on a call. Bluntly, I want to steal someone on a Friday and have them at work on the Monday next ( I appreciate that's a caricature).
John, I don't need a shopping list.
Give me three !
And I will give you thirty CVs...warning though you will have to pay them a living wage.
That would be the world's worst recruitment consultant. If you can supply a pile of 30 CVs in response to any given highly specific request then the chances of actually finding someone with the right skill set are vanishingly small.
"The time limit creates a big problem for a country such as Britain wishing to negotiate advantageous exit terms, since once notice has been given the process can only be halted or extended by unanimous agreement, giving any member state a veto.
That's symmetrical, though, in that we have a veto on extending it as well. The Brexiteers assured us and continue to assure us that we have the stronger hand in the negotiations, so presumably the threat of us leaving without an agreement will be an advantage to us. Or something like that.
Quite. It was designed to be so horrible no one would ever use it. Apparently the Germans objected even to the inclusion of A50, and felt that EU membership should be explicitly irreversible, but they compromised with a method so grisly it would surely never be enacted
The mad Federalist Italian cunt that wrote A50 also wants us to "suffer" for daring to use the clause he wrote
OK. So you do actually genuinely have any evidence - other than a throw away line by a failed Italian politician in a Russia Today article - that he "wrote Article 50"?
I mean, seriously.
The Lisbon Treaty is a horrible disaster, on that we both agree. But where you see conspiracy, I see merely incompetence. The idea that - in marathon negotiating sessions - that there was a secret plan to make leaving the EU near impossible by having a two year period is laughable.
"The time limit creates a big problem for a country such as Britain wishing to negotiate advantageous exit terms, since once notice has been given the process can only be halted or extended by unanimous agreement, giving any member state a veto.
Which is why Brexit means hard Brexit. The default position is hard Brexit, and there is not going to be time to negotiate anything more sophisticated.
Still, it does mean that all the £350 million per week promised to the NHS will be there.
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
I could give you a laundry list of tech specialisms in the software industry. Some startups need very niche skills. Those who have those skills are generally not sat in their skivvies watching Jeremy Kyle and waiting on a call. Bluntly, I want to steal someone on a Friday and have them at work on the Monday next ( I appreciate that's a caricature).
John, I don't need a shopping list.
Give me three !
And I will give you thirty CVs...warning though you will have to pay them a living wage.
That would be the world's worst recruitment consultant. If you can supply a pile of 30 CVs in response to any given highly specific request then the chances of actually finding someone with the right skill set are vanishingly small.
You are very good at very very good at distraction. Or not why don't you answer the question three skills please we can't recruit in UK
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
As a business your recruitment costs go up if the pool of talent you can easily chose from gets smaller and you need longer to fill vacancies.
so you agree. its about cheaper labour...
You didn't answer the question though.
Not cheaper labour, but more timely and better labour. Sometimes it's the different between having a business and not having a business.
Quite. It was designed to be so horrible no one would ever use it. Apparently the Germans objected even to the inclusion of A50, and felt that EU membership should be explicitly irreversible, but they compromised with a method so grisly it would surely never be enacted
The mad Federalist Italian cunt that wrote A50 also wants us to "suffer" for daring to use the clause he wrote
OK. So you do actually genuinely have any evidence - other than a throw away line by a failed Italian politician in a Russia Today article - that he "wrote Article 50"?
I mean, seriously.
The Lisbon Treaty is a horrible disaster, on that we both agree. But where you see conspiracy, I see merely incompetence. The idea that - in marathon negotiating sessions - that there was a secret plan to make leaving the EU near impossible by having a two year period is laughable.
"make it unworkable when it was first proposed in 2003."
"The time limit creates a big problem for a country such as Britain wishing to negotiate advantageous exit terms, since once notice has been given the process can only be halted or extended by unanimous agreement, giving any member state a veto.
That article doesn't really match your earlier RT one, except possibly by very selective quoting.
"Creating problems" is not exactly "making it impossible". Federalists, according to that piece, opposed adding the article which directly contradicts the RT one, for example.
But ultimately, there is no problem. There will be negotiations prior to the invocation of Article 50, that lead to an agreement of an exit framework (FTA goods and services, small budget payments, etc.), that are followed by Article 50.
EU governments want an amicable divorce. We will leave.
Quite. It was designed to be so horrible no one would ever use it. Apparently the Germans objected even to the inclusion of A50, and felt that EU membership should be explicitly irreversible, but they compromised with a method so grisly it would surely never be enacted
The mad Federalist Italian cunt that wrote A50 also wants us to "suffer" for daring to use the clause he wrote
OK. So you do actually genuinely have any evidence - other than a throw away line by a failed Italian politician in a Russia Today article - that he "wrote Article 50"?
I mean, seriously.
The Lisbon Treaty is a horrible disaster, on that we both agree. But where you see conspiracy, I see merely incompetence. The idea that - in marathon negotiating sessions - that there was a secret plan to make leaving the EU near impossible by having a two year period is laughable.
"When the first drafts of the exit clause were being debated, federalists were more torn over arguments that still have resonance. Some countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, objected on principle. Others wanted the clause written in a way that stopped a country breaking free without EU consent."
"With hindsight, the two-year deadline appears to have been quite a hurdle for secessionist states. Some senior EU officials believe Britain “will never notify” and give the tactical whip hand to Brussels, but will instead attempt to negotiate an exit deal outside Article 50."
If you can come to the UK as a tourist, find work and get a visa immediately (if you qualify) then there's no real problem for high tech start-ups and ithers who need high-specialsed technicians immediately. It becomes a problem if the process becomes time-consuming and complicated; for example, requiring applicants to go home and get visas granted by UK consulates/embassies. That will be a huge disincentive and will mean a lot of missed opportunities.
May I ask what "high-specialsed technicians immediately." we are lacing in that we need recruit abroad ?
I could give you a laundry list of tech specialisms in the software industry. Some startups need very niche skills. Those who have those skills are generally not sat in their skivvies watching Jeremy Kyle and waiting on a call. Bluntly, I want to steal someone on a Friday and have them at work on the Monday next ( I appreciate that's a caricature).
John, I don't need a shopping list.
Give me three !
And I will give you thirty CVs...warning though you will have to pay them a living wage.
- Someone who can integrate AWS Lambda into the CI pipeline of an existing Amazon stack. - Someone who can write an implementation of STUN and ICE to run over a bespoke network protocol. - Someone who can implement custom neural networks in OpenCL.
Things like that. It's not a matter of a living wage, people who can do things like this well, from a standing start, are expensive.
Comments
I have heard quite a few people say similar things.
I've had otherwise intelligent people tell me that a 2.1% shortfall over 14 years represents an economic calamity (their words, not mine). It's very odd when people are so emotionally invested in the idea of an entity (e.g. EU, NHS, the Labour party itself).
(Permanent) residency means you have certain rights that merely living in a country does not confer, but still short of those of a full citizen.
It is hardly no change to require that those coming have a job offer or the means and intent to invest in Britain.
Galway was the second wettest - only a steady drizzle but it started when I had just ridden for 3 hours out from my home base. Scotland was dry but muddy as I wandered into a peat bog and had to dismount to free my steed.
Iceland was smelly and desolate and Estonia had the prettiest girls
Bloomberg getting beaten by Deez Nuts was an early sign to bail out for him.
Evan McMullin getting beaten by Sausage McMuffin in Utah, is also an early sign to bail out for him.
I thought the whole point of a 'points-based immigration system' was that it was something no-one could really disagree with. You could disagree with how the points should be allocated and what the thresholds should be - but that's an argument for further down the road. A call for a 'points-based immigration system' is, at the levels of details it's been discussed in the UK )i.e. not much) surely just a statement that you are going to use some sort of methodology for deciding which immigrants you allow to legally enter the country.
Are there honestly people - apart from Jeremy Corbyn - who think this is unreasonable? What is their preferred approach?
I'm not expecting a second deal with the UK nor a second referendum, for the same reasons I outlined a few days after the vote: nobody in the UK is seeking one, and without a request for a better deal the EU can't offer one because they don't know what to offer.
[edit: unfuck html]
The UK is a high complexity economy. We need to think through our immigration system carefully so we have the flexibility business needs and the control the electorate wants.
1. People who come through family connections, or because they have ancestors with Australian citizenship.
2. People who come in through the system for quotas for specific professions.
3. Those on inter-corporate transfers.
4. Refugees.
5. New Zealanders.
Follow your roommate on Twitter https://t.co/oFzx4JuwMU
Personally, having lived in six foreign countries, including France, I have never found the paperwork that daunting. And the paperwork in France was more burdensome than that of either Switzerland or the US.
Being required to fill out one or two forms has never struck me as the definition of barbarism. If it is yours, I suggest you need to get out a bit more.
The Ridgeview: well, I managed to convince AlanBrooke, gent of this parish, to try it instead of the Nyetimber and he graciously conceded that it was superior. It has also been served at a state banquet for President Obama/
(Also, I forgot students from the list.)
I put it down to the iPhone generation consuming their news in soundbites. Actually picking up a book or reading a piece of research is far too time consuming.
The problem with points based systems is this: either it's so loose that you end up allowing in vast numbers of people, or it's so tight that there are lots of hard luck stories from deserving immigrants and that companies can't bring highly qualified people in.
So, you end up with hybrid systems: points for those who come "on spec", and then a bunch of specific, non-points based systems for others. You also often have, like the UK used to have with Ireland, or Australia has with New Zealand, reciprocal work arrangements with neighbours.
You can make that same fallacious argument for anything that remoaners want. It is fallacious because you forgot to subtract the x % of those who voted Remain who do actually want some control of the border back. And because we have two unknowns in that equation, neither you nor I know which position in is in the majority.
If I had my time again and had a greater wallet and facility for languages, I would have loved to live in Japan, even if only for a little while. It's batshit crazy, but my kind of batshit crazy.
If Scotland does split, I'd idly consider Scotland, although to what degree of seriousness is unknown.
The holders of such a permit would not be an immigrant, merely a guest worker. Just as I was when I worked abroad. Treat students much the same (responsibility on the University).
Lo and behold immigration would be down to less than 100,000 p.a. very quickly.
The North Island is more moxed as less mountainous but the East coast has a similar climate as does the Bay of Plenty. New Zealanders regularly vote Nelson on SI the best place to live, it has lemon trees, beaches, national parks and a dry climate as well as an amiable countercultural vibe.
Can't bring in cheaper people is the truth.
There will be some payments. There is a budget for EFTA, and it is paid by Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, etc. There is a budget for NAFTA, and Canada, the US and Mexico all pay into it. There is a budget for Mercusor, etc.
Now, the sums are usually an order of magnitude less that those that we pay historically to the EU. But I think the idea that you can take advantage of the infrastructure of the EU/EEA without paying something is deluded.
2.
If you sign up to NAFTA, you accept the supremacy of ISDS tribunals, similarly for the TPP agreements that Australia, Japan and New Zealand signed with the US. EFTA has a court in Luxembourg to arbitrate on single market disputes between countries.
Every single free trade agreement contains some binding dispute resolution system that has supremacy to local law.
Now, there are degrees. The EU is clearly very invasive. NAFTA somewhat less so (although it did prevent, for example, the Quebec government restricting GMOs as it infringed on the access of US seeds into the Canadian market). EFTA/EEA is less invasive yet. But a free trade agreement by its very nature is denuding of sovereignty.
4 & 5. The issue with this is that they directly counter 2. The whole point about a single margin in goods and services is that it prevents local governments from implementing (democratic) restrictions on who or how things may be provided.
Let me give you the example of NAFTA: you can't use product standards to restrict access to your market. And this is particularly relevant in the case of services.
Freedom of movement was obsolescent after 2004, and Merkel's unilateral decision to import the Middle East to Germany killed it for me. Unlike politicians I can look ten years ahead.
Here's the text:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Genuinely: what's so loathsome about that?
Brexit may tilt the balance if the UK economy craters post-Brexit and it becomes in Scotland's economic interest to do so. But unless things really go ka-ka, that's not going to happen.
There is a question about how many students stay here at the end of their studies. When I was researching this, I found it very hard to get any decent statistics on that (the presentation of the ONS migration figures can charitably be described as abysmal).
For Trump to win he has to have a campaign, smile a lot, and keep quiet.
As Trump himself put it in 1980, someone can win with no brains but a big smile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5VEjF1uhYo
Look today, Trump is not into any controversy so the news is all about Hillary and her 15K emails the FBI just discovered.
Hillary might have caught Trump on Google Trends, but because her email scandal is flaring again, and Trump has not done something stupid to obscure it.
In this case Bad Publicity is Bad.
That is why we talk about net migration and include students. Omitting them is just a way of fiddling the figures.
You know rather more about my personal financial circumstances than most on PB
The optics of this image are terrible for Renzi and Hollande.
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-1039202-breitwandaufmacher-hijx-1039202.jpg
I mean, seriously.
The Lisbon Treaty is a horrible disaster, on that we both agree. But where you see conspiracy, I see merely incompetence. The idea that - in marathon negotiating sessions - that there was a secret plan to make leaving the EU near impossible by having a two year period is laughable.
https://www.nakedwines.com/wines/old-winchester-hill-oeil-de-perdrix-nv.htm
You didn't answer the question though.
Give me three !
And I will give you thirty CVs...warning though you will have to pay them a living wage.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f64f006-4dbd-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590a.html#axzz4I6NcWjny
The 262 words that frame Britain’s EU divorce came to life on a kitchen table. The date was early 2003 and the place the small Brussels flat of John Kerr, a veteran British diplomat turned secretary-general for a conclave to develop a new EU constitution.
Whoever wrote it, the conspiracy theories about the EU are tiresome in the extreme. I'm sure that little thought went into Article 50, but that's doesn't make it some evil conspiracy.
Still, it does mean that all the £350 million per week promised to the NHS will be there.
Or not
why don't you answer the question three skills please we can't recruit in UK
"Creating problems" is not exactly "making it impossible". Federalists, according to that piece, opposed adding the article which directly contradicts the RT one, for example.
But ultimately, there is no problem. There will be negotiations prior to the invocation of Article 50, that lead to an agreement of an exit framework (FTA goods and services, small budget payments, etc.), that are followed by Article 50.
EU governments want an amicable divorce. We will leave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37161530
So I'm really struggling to understand your point.
- Someone who can write an implementation of STUN and ICE to run over a bespoke network protocol.
- Someone who can implement custom neural networks in OpenCL.
Things like that. It's not a matter of a living wage, people who can do things like this well, from a standing start, are expensive.