No they would not, if full free movement is agreed in a sector of the single market you get full single market access, it is not that difficult. If you applied a points based system you would not. In a speech as Home Secretary May made clear how important EU trade was to UK exports relative to other nations, she is a realist and will do the necessary to get a trade deal with the EU especially with the Japanese statement today
Except that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about your claim that having a quota based system in one sector and free movement in another somehow does not compromise free movement, while having a points based system in that same sector and free movement in another does.
Anyway, I think it will be very difficult to get a deal on partial free movement.
If May commits to a points based system the public will expect to see that applied across the board and you cannot align that with free movement. As for a partial free movement deal there is no choice now, May will have to do whatever necessary to get it, the alternative is economic catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Midlands and Northeast and the closure of factories across those regions and their transfer to the Continent (albeit Brexit voters in those areas have only themselves to blame)
OK, but I'm not talking about whether or not it would be politically acceptable, I'm saying that both would compromise free movement in the same way - by limiting freedom of movement. I find it very hard to imagine the EU accepting a deal with partial freedom of movement (basically us saying we'll accept people only in specific areas - the best and brightest as it were). Why on Earth would the EU agree to that, some members would be up in arms that we get to pick and chose who we let in while they are forced to accept everyone.
When the USA split from Canada trade between the two countries dropped almost to nothing. Trade is the agregate of many small decisions. I buy one or two Zegna suits a year and some casual stuff. I wear Stemar shoes. After Renzi made his views public on the UK, I won't buy another Italian product. I don't think I am the only one who thinks like this.
When the USA split from Canada trade between the two countries dropped almost to nothing. Trade is the agregate of many small decisions. I buy one or two Zegna suits a year and some casual stuff. I wear Stemar shoes. After Renzi made his views public on the UK, I won't buy another Italian product. I don't think I am the only one who thinks like this.
I think the world has changed a bit since the late 18th century!!
No they would not, if full free movement is agreed in a sector of the single market you get full single market access, it is not that difficult. If you applied a points based system you would not. In a speech as Home Secretary May made clear how important EU trade was to UK exports relative to other nations, she is a realist and will do the necessary to get a trade deal with the EU especially with the Japanese statement today
Except that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about your claim that having a quota based system in one sector and free movement in another somehow does not compromise free movement, while having a points based system in that same sector and free movement in another does.
Anyway, I think it will be very difficult to get a deal on partial free movement.
If May commits to a points based system the public will expect to see that applied across the board and you cannot align that with free movement. As for a partial free movement deal there is no choice now, May will have to do whatever necessary to get it, the alternative is economic catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Midlands and Northeast and the closure of factories across those regions and their transfer to the Continent (albeit Brexit voters in those areas have only themselves to blame)
OK, but I'm not talking about whether or not it would be politically acceptable, I'm saying that both would compromise free movement in the same way - by limiting freedom of movement. I find it very hard to imagine the EU accepting a deal with partial freedom of movement (basically us saying we'll accept people only in specific areas - the best and brightest as it were). Why on Earth would the EU agree to that, some members would be up in arms that we get to pick and chose who we let in while they are forced to accept everyone.
You are now contradicting yourself, only accepting the best and brightest is the basis of a points based system which May is looking to abandon. Instead she will agree full free movement in sectors the UK needs single market access and in others she won't and we will therefore get no single market access in those sectors
No they would not, if full free movement is agreed in a sector of the single market you get full single market access, it is not that difficult. If you applied a points based system you would not. In a speech as Home Secretary May made clear how important EU trade was to UK exports relative to other nations, she is a realist and will do the necessary to get a trade deal with the EU especially with the Japanese statement today
Except that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about your claim that having a quota based system in one sector and free movement in another somehow does not compromise free movement, while having a points based system in that same sector and free movement in another does.
Anyway, I think it will be very difficult to get a deal on partial free movement.
If May commits to a points based system the public will expect to see that applied across the board and you cannot align that with free movement. As for a partial free movement deal there is no choice now, May will have to do whatever necessary to get it, the alternative is economic catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Midlands and Northeast and the closure of factories across those regions and their transfer to the Continent (albeit Brexit voters in those areas have only themselves to blame)
OK, but I'm not talking about whether or not it would be politically acceptable, I'm saying that both would compromise free movement in the same way - by limiting freedom of movement. I find it very hard to imagine the EU accepting a deal with partial freedom of movement (basically us saying we'll accept people only in specific areas - the best and brightest as it were). Why on Earth would the EU agree to that, some members would be up in arms that we get to pick and chose who we let in while they are forced to accept everyone.
You are now contradicting yourself, only accepting the best and brightest is the basis of a points based system which May is looking to abandon. Instead she will agree full free movement in sectors the UK needs single market access and in others she won'tand we will therefore get no single market access in those sectors
But that's exactly what opening up freedom of movement in individual sectors alone is, it would allow us to pick and chose who we want in. Just imagine the scenario, we'll ask for freedom of movement in the fields of microbiology and astrophysics, but we won't in the fields of bin collection and cleaning.
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn appeared to back Mr Vaz last night, saying: ‘It should be treated as a private matter. ‘He is going to meet the home affairs committee and discuss with them what his role will be in the future. I’m not sure what that decision will be but I leave it to him to decide on that.
‘He hasn’t committed any crime that I know of. As far as I’m aware it is a private matter and I will obviously talk to Keith.
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn appeared to back Mr Vaz last night, saying: ‘It should be treated as a private matter. ‘He is going to meet the home affairs committee and discuss with them what his role will be in the future. I’m not sure what that decision will be but I leave it to him to decide on that.
‘He hasn’t committed any crime that I know of. As far as I’m aware it is a private matter and I will obviously talk to Keith.
No they would not, if full free movement is agreed in a sector of the single market you get full single market access, it is not that difficult. If you applied a points based system you would not. In a speech as Home Secretary May made clear how important EU trade was to UK exports relative to other nations, she is a realist and will do the necessary to get a trade deal with the EU especially with the Japanese statement today
Except that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about your claim that having a quota based system in one sector and free movement in another somehow does not compromise free movement, while having a points based system in that same sector and free movement in another does.
Anyway, I think it will be very difficult to get a deal on partial free movement.
If May commits to a points based system the public will expect to see that applied across the board and you cannot align that with free movement. As for a partial free movement deal there is no choice now, May will have to do whatever necessary to get it, the alternative is economic catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Midlands and Northeast and the closure of factories across those regions and their transfer to the Continent (albeit Brexit voters in those areas have only themselves to blame)
OK, but I'm not talking about whether or not it would be politically acceptable, I'm saying that both would compromise free movement in the same way - by limiting freedom of movement. I find it very hard to imagine the EU accepting a deal with partial freedom of movement (basically us saying we'll accept people only in specific areas - the best and brightest as it were). Why on Earth would the EU agree to that, some members would be up in arms that we get to pick and chose who we let in while they are forced to accept everyone.
You are now contradicting yourself, only accepting the best and brightest is the ors
But that's exactly what opening up freedom of movement in individual sectors along is, it would allow us to pick and chose who we want in. Just imagine the scenario, we'll ask for freedom of movement in the fields of microbiology and astrophysics, but we won't in the fields of bin collection and cleaning.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
Except that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about your claim that having a quota based system in one sector and free movement in another somehow does not compromise free movement, while having a points based system in that same sector and free movement in another does.
Anyway, I think it will be very difficult to get a deal on partial free movement.
If May commits to a points based system the public will expect to see that applied across the board and you cannot align that with free movement. As for a partial free movement deal there is no choice now, May will have to do whatever necessary to get it, the alternative is economic catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Midlands and Northeast and the closure of factories across those regions and their transfer to the Continent (albeit Brexit voters in those areas have only themselves to blame)
OK, but I'm not talking about whether or not it would be politically acceptable, I'm saying that both would compromise free movement in the same way - by limiting freedom of movement. I find it very hard to imagine the EU accepting a deal with partial freedom of movement (basically us saying we'll accept people only in specific areas - the best and brightest as it were). Why on Earth would the EU agree to that, some members would be up in arms that we get to pick and chose who we let in while they are forced to accept everyone.
You are now contradicting yourself, only accepting the best and brightest is the basis of a points based system which May is looking to abandon. Instead she will agree full free movement in sectors the UK needs single market access and in others she won'tand we will therefore get no single market access in those sectors
But that's exactly what opening up freedom of movement in individual sectors alone is, it would allow us to pick and chose who we want in. Just imagine the scenario, we'll ask for freedom of movement in the fields of microbiology and astrophysics, but we won't in the fields of bin collection and cleaning.
That's the theory, but "who we want" is decided by politicians running for reelection, then implemented by a vast, incompetent box-ticking bureaucracy that already deports people trying to speak at conferences. The result will not be that you end up with the best and the brightest.
Except that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about your claim that having a quota based system in one sector and free movement in another somehow does not compromise free movement, while having a points based system in that same sector and free movement in another does.
Anyway, I think it will be very difficult to get a deal on partial free movement.
If May commits to a points based system the public will expect to see that applied across the board and you cannot align that with free movement. As for a partial free movement deal there is no choice now, May will have to do whatever necessary to get it, the alternative is economic catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Midlands and Northeast and the closure of factories across those regions and their transfer to the Continent (albeit Brexit voters in those areas have only themselves to blame)
OK, but I'm not talking about whether or not it would be politically acceptable, I'm saying that both would compromise free movement in the same way - by limiting freedom of movement. I find it very hard to imagine the EU accepting a deal with partial freedom of movement (basically us saying we'll accept people only in specific areas - the best and brightest as it were). Why on Earth would the EU agree to that, some members would be up in arms that we get to pick and chose who we let in while they are forced to accept everyone.
You are now contradicting yourself, only accepting the best and brightest is the basis of a points based system which May is looking to abandon. Instead she will agree full free movement in sectors the UK needs single market access and in others she won'tand we will therefore get no single market access in those sectors
But that's exactly what opening up freedom of movement in individual sectors alone is, it would allow us to pick and chose who we want in. Just imagine the scenario, we'll ask for freedom of movement in the fields of microbiology and astrophysics, but we won't in the fields of bin collection and cleaning.
That's the theory, but "who we want" is decided by politicians running for reelection, then implemented by a vast, incompetent box-ticking bureaucracy that already deports people trying to speak at conferences. The result will not be that you end up with the best and the brightest.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
You were the one who phrased it in a points system type way, more likely it would be done in a sector based way ie the car industry for the Germans gets full free movement and full single market access in return for full free movement and single market access for the City. The alternative is potential movement of some City institutions and Japanese factories to the Continent and in retaliation the UK imposing hefty tariffs on German car imports, French wine imports etc i.e. a complete economic disaster for the EU as well as the UK
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
You were the one who phrased it in a points system type way, more likely it would be done in a sector based way ie the car industry for the Germans gets full free movement and full single market access in return for full free movement and single market access for the City. The alternative is potential movement of some City institutions and Japanese factories to the Continent and in retaliation the UK imposing hefty tariffs on German car imports, French wine imports etc i.e. a complete economic disaster for the EU as well as the UK
I find it hard to imagine them every agreeing to such a thing. It would be us getting all the benefits of free movement without any of the downside, even if it is limited to a particular sector. It also won't be a complete economic disaster for them without single market access - they will still sell things here!
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
You were the one who phrased it in a points system type way, more likely it would be done in a sector based way ie the car industry for the Germans gets full free movement and full single market access in return for full free movement and single market access for the City. The alternative is potential movement of some City institutions and Japanese factories to the Continent and in retaliation the UK imposing hefty tariffs on German car imports, French wine imports etc i.e. a complete economic disaster for the EU as well as the UK
I find it hard to imagine them every agreeing to such a thing. It would be us getting all the benefits of free movement without any of the downside, even if it is limited to a particular sector. It also won't be a complete economic disaster for them without single market access - they will still sell things here!
Of course it will be a complete disaster for them, the UK would impose heavy tariffs on German, French and Italian cars so UK consumers would switch from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and Fiat and Ferrari to Vauxhall, Ford, KIA and Jaguar and Aston Martin and Toyota and heavy tariffs on French and Italian wine so UK consumers switch to South African and Australian or even English wine.
It would be us getting single market access in some sectors important to us and them to the UK in some sectors important to them
'I find it hard to imagine them every agreeing to such a thing. It would be us getting all the benefits of free movement without any of the downside, even if it is limited to a particular sector. It also won't be a complete economic disaster for them without single market access - they will still sell things here!'
I'm sure that the Japanese & US companies could manage the WTO tariffs if compensation for this hassle was a very low corporation tax rate to offset them.
Seems that after last week Apple could be interested.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
You were the one who phrased it in a points system type way, more likely it would be done in a sector based way ie the car industry for the Germans gets full free movement and full single market access in return for full free movement and single market access for the City. The alternative is potential movement of some City institutions and Japanese factories to the Continent and in retaliation the UK imposing hefty tariffs on German car imports, French wine imports etc i.e. a complete economic disaster for the EU as well as the UK
I find it hard to imagine them every agreeing to such a thing. It would be us getting all the benefits of free movement without any of the downside, even if it is limited to a particular sector. It also won't be a complete economic disaster for them without single market access - they will still sell things here!
Of course it will be a complete disaster for them, the UK would impose heavy tariffs on German cars so UK consumers would switch from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and Fiat and Ferrari to Vauxhall, Ford, KIA and Jaguar and Aston Martin and Toyota and heavy tariffs on French and Italian wine to South African and Australian or even English wine.
It would be us getting single market access in some sectors important to us and them to the UK in some sectors important to them
Yes, there would be an economic effect. No, it wouldn't be a "complete disaster".
'Did you not see this coming ? Some Japanese people were seen looking at plots in Drogheda recently.'
Presumably they will also create a brand new port infrastructure so the cars don't have to be shipped via the UK (as virtually all Irish exports to the EU are) and avoid UK tariffs and a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
Not necessarily, we may have enough astrophysicists but a shortage of binmen and the sectors will be up for negotiation, inevitably we will have to give EU nations free movement in some areas we don't want to and vice versa
I fail to see why the EU would ever agree to such terms, especially as the free movement of people (not some people) is one of their core principles.
You were the one who phrased it in a points system type way, more likely it would be done in a sector based way ie the car industry for the Germans gets full free movement and full single market access in return for full free movement and single market access for the City. The alternative is potential movement of some City institutions and Japanese factories to the Continent and in retaliation the UK imposing hefty tariffs on German car imports, French wine imports etc i.e. a complete economic disaster for the EU as well as the UK
I find it hard to imagine them every agreeing to such a thing. It would be us getting all the benefits of free movement without any of the downside, even if it is limited to a particular sector. It also won't be a complete economic disaster for them without single market access - they will still sell things here!
Of course it will be a complete disaster for them, the UK would impose heavy tariffs on German cars so UK consumers would switch from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and Fiat and Ferrari to Vauxhall, Ford, KIA and Jaguar and Aston Martin and Toyota and heavy tariffs on French and Italian wine to South African and Australian or even English wine.
It would be us getting single market access in some sectors important to us and them to the UK in some sectors important to them
Yes, there would be an economic effect. No, it wouldn't be a "complete disaster".
Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
BBC News suggests May refusing to commit to the points based immigration system the Vote Leave campaign committed to as 'there is no evidence it works '. More evidence she is moving towards a limited free movement and limited single market membership deal and away from full hard BREXIT
BBC News suggests May refusing to commit to the points based immigration system the Vote Leave campaign committed to as 'there is no evidence it works '. More evidence she is moving towards a limited free movement and limited single market membership deal and away from full hard BREXIT
BBC News suggests May refusing to commit to the points based immigration system the Vote Leave campaign committed to as 'there is no evidence it works '. More evidence she is moving towards a limited free movement and limited single market membership deal and away from full hard BREXIT
You lost my attention at "BBC News suggests...."
As does the Times, the Telegraph and every other broadsheet tomorrow
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Of course it matters, they have whole industries with jobs dependent on UK exports. Given most of our exports to the EU are in services, especially financial services, which are harder to impose tariffs on if we imposed heavy tariffs on all EU goods exported to the UK as we would have to with no single market deal that would hit the EU as hard, if not harder than us
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Not necessarily. We can offset lost trade with Europe potentially with gained trade with the rest of the world from all our new trade deals we are looking to sign.
The EU can't even agree to finish TTIP let alone other trade deals. So trade lost with us is simply lost and not looking to be offset elsewhere.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
So if you're the best and the brightest, do you want to go somewhere where you're going to get deported to the wrong side of your continent because you can't remember off-hand whether you got paid for a talk previously, or do you go somewhere where you're not going to get dicked around?
This effect gets multiplied because the best people want to work with the other best people. If you set up in Berlin you can work with anyone in the EU, and good people from outside the EU have a reasonable chance of getting in to work with you, whereas if you're in the UK you want to see you can only work with them if your assessment of the best and the brightest matches the assessment that comes out of the Home Office flow chart.
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Not necessarily. We can offset lost trade with Europe potentially with gained trade with the rest of the world from all our new trade deals we are looking to sign.
The EU can't even agree to finish TTIP let alone other trade deals. So trade lost with us is simply lost and not looking to be offset elsewhere.
Not imminently with Japan and the U.S. judging by today and certainly not if Hillary wins, the Commonwealth maybe, goodnight
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
So if you're the best and the brightest, do you want to go somewhere where you're going to get deported to the wrong side of your continent because you can't remember off-hand whether you got paid for a talk previously, or do you go somewhere where you're not going to get dicked around?
This effect gets multiplied because the best people want to work with the other best people. If you set up in Berlin you can work with anyone in the EU, and good people from outside the EU have a reasonable chance of getting in to work with you, whereas if you're in the UK you want to see you can only work with them if your assessment of the best and the brightest matches the assessment that comes out of the Home Office flow chart.
Looks like she was deported because of the whole profit sharing thing, for which a visa would be required.
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Of course it matters, they have whole industries with jobs dependent on UK exports. Given most of our exports to the EU are in services, especially financial services, which are harder to impose tariffs on if we imposed heavy tariffs on all EU goods exported to the UK as we would have to with no single market deal that would hit the EU as hard, if not harder than us
Exports which won't stop, and which aren't solely dependent on the UK.
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Of course it matters, they have whole industries with jobs dependent on UK exports. Given most of our exports to the EU are in services, especially financial services, which are harder to impose tariffs on if we imposed heavy tariffs on all EU goods exported to the UK as we would have to with no single market deal that would hit the EU as hard, if not harder than us
Exports which won't stop, and which aren't solely dependent on the UK.
They will stop in large part if UK consumers switch to goods from non-EU countries and of course the UK has non-EU markets too. Goodnight
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Of course it matters, they have whole industries with jobs dependent on UK exports. Given most of our exports to the EU are in services, especially financial services, which are harder to impose tariffs on if we imposed heavy tariffs on all EU goods exported to the UK as we would have to with no single market deal that would hit the EU as hard, if not harder than us
Exports which won't stop, and which aren't solely dependent on the UK.
They will stop in large part if UK consumers switch to goods from non-EU countries and of course the UK has non-EU markets too. Goodnight
The tariffs we could impose would be limited to the levels permitted under WTO MFN rules.
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Of course it matters, they have whole industries with jobs dependent on UK exports. Given most of our exports to the EU are in services, especially financial services, which are harder to impose tariffs on if we imposed heavy tariffs on all EU goods exported to the UK as we would have to with no single market deal that would hit the EU as hard, if not harder than us
Exports which won't stop, and which aren't solely dependent on the UK.
They will stop in large part if UK consumers switch to goods from non-EU countries and of course the UK has non-EU markets too. Goodnight
The tariffs we could impose would be limited to the levels permitted under WTO MFN rules.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
Each one arranges a visa (or at least has their agent do it).
If she had been deported for receiving an honorarium, then I'd have had some sympathy, but she actually was to profit from the whole thing by taking a cut of the ticket sales.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
I guess they have to get visas. In this case the situation seems to be that a speech is OK, but a workshop at the conference is bad because that would be tutoring, so you have to get a visa for that. But it's hard to tell because technically you seem to need a visa for the speech too, and the relevant website is a mess. Anyhow there's a simple practical solution if you're in high demand, which is not to go to Britain.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
I guess they have to get visas. In this case the situation seems to be that a speech is OK, but a workshop at the conference is bad because that would be tutoring, so you have to get a visa for that. But it's hard to tell because technically you seem to need a visa for the speech too, and the relevant website is a mess. Anyhow there's a simple practical solution if you're in high demand, which is not to go to Britain.
You don't need a visa if you are receiving an honorarium and/or expenses for your trip.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
I guess they have to get visas. In this case the situation seems to be that a speech is OK, but a workshop at the conference is bad because that would be tutoring, so you have to get a visa for that. But it's hard to tell because technically you seem to need a visa for the speech too, and the relevant website is a mess. Anyhow there's a simple practical solution if you're in high demand, which is not to go to Britain.
In my experience there's a lot of skirting of this kind of rule in every country. If the relationship between a locally billed service and a visiting expert is opaque not many people will go to the trouble of obtaining a work visa when they have visa free access as a tourist.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
I guess they have to get visas. In this case the situation seems to be that a speech is OK, but a workshop at the conference is bad because that would be tutoring, so you have to get a visa for that. But it's hard to tell because technically you seem to need a visa for the speech too, and the relevant website is a mess. Anyhow there's a simple practical solution if you're in high demand, which is not to go to Britain.
You don't need a visa if you are receiving an honorarium and/or expenses for your trip.
That's not what the answers on the stack exchange piece you linked say. They say you can probably get away with it as long as you don't do something to piss them off. Also note the other byzantine conditions about the organizers being UK-managed etc, violation of which could also mean a night in the cells and deportation back to somewhere you didn't come from.
That's not what the answers on the stack exchange piece you linked say. They say you can probably get away with it as long as you don't do something to piss them off. Also note the other byzantine conditions about the organizers being UK-managed etc, violation of which could also mean a night in the cells and deportation back to somewhere you didn't come from.
The appendix mentioned states reasonable expenses are permitted, and going by what is listed on the websites of a few universities, that includes honoraria. The UK-managed thing comes into play with the type of visa she should have applied for, which it clearly states on the website
Hardly byzantine, and alarm bells should have started ringing the moment she was told she was being paid above and beyond a simple fee. And she was departed back to the country she came from, it isn't too difficult to get from one end to another.
l Nope, sorry the EU exports significantly more goods to the UK than the UK does to the EU, it would be a complete disaster for them. It would also be a complete disaster for us too both in terms of the City and factory closures
The relative leve between EU exports to the UK and UK exports to the EU doesn't matter. What matters is what fraction the EU exports to the UK is of all their exports. Not saying it wouldn't be worse for the UK, I am saying they are in a much stronger position and less likely to agree partial free movement.
Of course it matters, they have whole industries with jobs dependent on UK exports. Given most of our exports to the EU are in services, especially financial services, which are harder to impose tariffs on if we imposed heavy tariffs on all EU goods exported to the UK as we would have to with no single market deal that would hit the EU as hard, if not harder than us
Exports which won't stop, and which aren't solely dependent on the UK.
They will stop in large part if UK consumers switch to goods from non-EU countries and of course the UK has non-EU markets too. Goodnight
The tariffs we could impose would be limited to the levels permitted under WTO MFN rules.
Not if Trump wins and takes the U.S. out of the WTO so it collapses
I think it's extremely probable that the intelligence services are trying to undermine Corbyn. Whether or not he deserves to be undermined is another matter.
Don't you think they have better things to do? The chance of him actually being elected are slim to none!
I do, but from what I gather about their outlook, I should imagine they do not. Of course he does an excellent job of undermining himself.
Deported for trying to speak at a conference? Surely there must be a logical explanation for that!
The logical explanation is that the voters asked the government to create a vast box-ticking bureaucracy enforcing byzantine rules that change at their whim, then kept complaining it was letting too many people in, prompting them to make the rules more byzantine and enforce them more strictly.
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
Interesting, it wasn't clear exactly why she was denied entry, but sounded like it all kicked off when she couldn't remember if she entered previously to give a talk for which she was paid. That, and the website was super confusing "You don't need a visa for activities allowed under the folowing visas...".
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
And? The idea that someone can't enter the country for a week or two to give paid talks is ridiculous. Do you think American singing stars come to the UK to give concerts for free?
I guess they have to get visas. In this case the situation seems to be that a speech is OK, but a workshop at the conference is bad because that would be tutoring, so you have to get a visa for that. But it's hard to tell because technically you seem to need a visa for the speech too, and the relevant website is a mess. Anyhow there's a simple practical solution if you're in high demand, which is not to go to Britain.
This is correct - non-EU singers, sports stars etc. all have to get visas in order to receive payment for any kind of activity undertaken while in the UK.
Comments
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn appeared to back Mr Vaz last night, saying: ‘It should be treated as a private matter. ‘He is going to meet the home affairs committee and discuss with them what his role will be in the future. I’m not sure what that decision will be but I leave it to him to decide on that.
‘He hasn’t committed any crime that I know of. As far as I’m aware it is a private matter and I will obviously talk to Keith.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3773574/Keith-Vaz-shamelessly-clings-power-paying-male-escorts-sex-blames-PRESS-uncovering-outrageous-hypocrisy-Labour-leader-Jeremy-Corbyn-appears-disgraced-MP-saying-treated-private-matter.html#ixzz4JKXSpYuE
i.e. a complete economic disaster for the EU as well as the UK
Here's a recent case: https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4
The striking thing watching Twitter when this was posted was how many other people reported similar experiences, and how many of them (I'm talking about the best and the brightest, like the visualization guru Edward Tufte) are now avoiding the UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3773244/Shami-Chakrabarti-hints-shadow-cabinet-job-dismisses-idea-corrupt-deal-Jeremy-Corbyn-anti-Semitism-inquiry.html
something smells fishy.
Corbyn has a fan
http://hurryupharry.org/2016/09/04/jeremy-corbyn-is-“sunshine”-for-david-duke/
Ah.. as always there is often more to the story than meets the eye:
http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/77241/what-are-the-visa-rules-for-us-speakers-at-uk-conferences-who-may-be-getting-p/77246
Looks like she was going to be earning a share of the ticket sales. Not your ordinary conference speaker!
It would be us getting single market access in some sectors important to us and them to the UK in some sectors important to them
'I find it hard to imagine them every agreeing to such a thing. It would be us getting all the benefits of free movement without any of the downside, even if it is limited to a particular sector. It also won't be a complete economic disaster for them without single market access - they will still sell things here!'
I'm sure that the Japanese & US companies could manage the WTO tariffs if compensation for this hassle was a very low corporation tax rate to offset them.
Seems that after last week Apple could be interested.
'Did you not see this coming ? Some Japanese people were seen looking at plots in Drogheda recently.'
Presumably they will also create a brand new port infrastructure so the cars don't have to be shipped via the UK (as virtually all Irish exports to the EU are) and avoid UK tariffs and a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork
The EU can't even agree to finish TTIP let alone other trade deals. So trade lost with us is simply lost and not looking to be offset elsewhere.
This effect gets multiplied because the best people want to work with the other best people. If you set up in Berlin you can work with anyone in the EU, and good people from outside the EU have a reasonable chance of getting in to work with you, whereas if you're in the UK you want to see you can only work with them if your assessment of the best and the brightest matches the assessment that comes out of the Home Office flow chart.
I reckon Sir Peter Soulsby is behind the sting. Sworn enemy of the Vazster.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450237/Entering_the_UK_Arts_Ents_leaflet_August_2015.pdf
If she had been deported for receiving an honorarium, then I'd have had some sympathy, but she actually was to profit from the whole thing by taking a cut of the ticket sales.
https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visa
Hardly byzantine, and alarm bells should have started ringing the moment she was told she was being paid above and beyond a simple fee. And she was departed back to the country she came from, it isn't too difficult to get from one end to another.
Vaz does eat regularly on the Belgrave rd. I have bumped into him there in various places.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/michael-gove-returns-times/
https://t.co/yf54MFCqEe