I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
So what?
Immigrants are going to fly to Dublin and then come to the UK are they? Great. They won't be entitled to work here unless they fulfil the criteria decided as necessary for our national interest.
Well Ireland are part of the Common Travel Area so they would still need to have border controls with the rest of the EU. The UK and Ireland operate a separate border to the Schengen zone, that hasn't changed.
''An income-based system, as suggested by @Max_PB, would be much simpler and fairer to operate.''
I wonder what odds you could get on UKIP carding a 20% poll score with a reputable pollster before the end of 2016. And 2017.
We're believing pollsters again at the moment?
More seriously, UKIP are a busted flush. Farage was 95% of their brand, and when he is not leader they fall in the polls. The other 5% was leaving Europe.
Now, if they could reinvent themselves as a left of centre economically, right of centre socially, they'll destroy Labour oop north. But I can't see it happening...
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
I've had zero time for Obama for about 6yrs. He takes a very long time to say almost nothing. Speechifying is the perfect description. Why anyone here is paying attention to him over Brexit perplexes me. He's well into lame duck mode.
My favourite observation of his platitudes remains this...
Obama is an average president, but he is far, far better than either of the two people currently vying to replace him.
That's a very good point!
He's also a lot better than the person he succeeded.
Hindsight now, but I think John McCain would have been better than all of the above.
I have huge respect for him and his integrity.
Amazingly, Obama is going to look like a colossus compared to whoever follows him.
That may not be the case. Obama got elected in 2008 on the back of meaningless catchphrases like "Hope" and "Change". He has utterly failed to deliver on the promises. He started on a high (and a peace prize, ffs) and has declined ever since.
Leaving Trump out of it (and I cannot see him being anything other than a disastrous president), if Hilary wins she will be starting with much lower expectations on her. It may be possible for her to exceed those expectations and be a boring managerial president.
But IMO neither Hilary or Trump have the vision, and the leadership skills to achieve that vision, that the US has desperately needed for a couple of decades.
Obama has merely made a statement of fact. The UK is of less interest to the US then the EU and a number of other bigger countries with more dynamic economies. We are going to have to get used to being of less importance to our international partners - the Japanese document published over the weekend makes that clear. This could also work to our advantage, of course. We just need to be creative.
Not really, the G20 is all about politicking and the theme was to ensure no other European country leaves the EU. Harsh treatment of the UK initially has been agreed beforehand, if you can't see through that then you need to think a little bit harder. On Japan, again, it's not really a big deal because trade harmonisation comes from the WTO via the EU, we will still be compliant with WTO standards after we leave the EU. It's really just an empty threat, politicians don't dictate where companies do their business.
What was most interesting about the G20 was not economic, it was political. In those terms it didn't go well for either the UK, US or EU. Obama's pivot to Asia is dead, the EU's relationship with Turkey is dead, the UK relationship with everyone has gone to "it's complicated" and Japan are making nice with Russia, while Turkey are doing the same. Both nations who have active US bases, one of which is extremely important in the defence of Europe from ISIS and the other extremely important for the defence of Asia from China
Yes, I think that's right. The G20 have sniffed out that the UK isn't quite sure what to do about Brexit so is taking the opportunity to fire a warning shot across its bows.
In Obama's case, there's an element of churlish petulance about the result as well, given he found out the British don't think he walks on water.
Or, alternatively, Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the US.
Just as many Brexiters voted the way they did because they thought it was best for the UK.
The churlish petulance this morning is coming from some moaning leavers.
That's a bit personal, JJ, and unlike you.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
I think May favours work permits. That said, there will not be 'an' immigration system. We alread have a pretty complicated system just for non-EU immigration. As I've said, oh so many times, if we can expedite any combination of {skilled, highly-paid, rich} into the UK, I'll be happy. I don't care if its ultimately based on the whims of a psionic hamster.
LOL! That's actually pretty smart from Smith. I guess at this point he's appealing to those who voted Corbyn last year, rather than those who voted Conservative in the general election.
Is that N.Ireland on the front with the union jack? or what?
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
So what?
Immigrants are going to fly to Dublin and then come to the UK are they? Great. They won't be entitled to work here unless they fulfil the criteria decided as necessary for our national interest.
Well Ireland are part of the Common Travel Area so they would still need to have border controls with the rest of the EU. The UK and Ireland operate a separate border to the Schengen zone, that hasn't changed.
Quite. This 'look at the Irish border!!!!' brigade don't seem to understand how immigration actually works.
LOL! That's actually pretty smart from Smith. I guess at this point he's appealing to those who voted Corbyn last year, rather than those who voted Conservative in the general election.
Is that N.Ireland on the front with the union jack? or what?
That may not be the case. Obama got elected in 2008 on the back of meaningless catchphrases like "Hope" and "Change". He has utterly failed to deliver on the promises. He started on a high (and a peace prize, ffs) and has declined ever since.
he's changed relations with iran and cuba. signed a new climate deal. changed healthcare.
supervised the massive expansion of execution by drone.
Quite a lot of changes, whether you agree with them or not
Lord Ashcroft From my new poll: in Brexit negotiations, should we prioritise immigration control, or access to the single market? https://t.co/fPPw0LZ3fH
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
That may not be the case. Obama got elected in 2008 on the back of meaningless catchphrases like "Hope" and "Change". He has utterly failed to deliver on the promises. He started on a high (and a peace prize, ffs) and has declined ever since.
he's changed relations with iran and cuba. signed a new climate deal. changed healthcare.
supervised the massive expansion of execution by drone.
Quite a lot of changes, whether you agree with them or not
And done that with a Congress which was, for most of the time, opposed to him. Rabidly so, in many members cases.
Lord Ashcroft From my new poll: in Brexit negotiations, should we prioritise immigration control, or access to the single market? https://t.co/fPPw0LZ3fH
Looks like we'll be controlling immigration then....
Definitely worth double-flagging - Clive Crook really simplifies the basics of what Brexit *should* mean, and tells May to hurry on and get the basic principles outlined:
The government should say that Britain is leaving the EU because it wants no part of the EU's supranational ambitions. The relationship Britain ought to propose is one between law-making governments -- the U.K. on one side and the EU and its member states on the other...subject to that, Britain will seek the maximum amount of economic integration and diplomatic co-operation.
= Norway option is out, because means automatic application of EU legislation = Turkey option is out, because means joining customs union and hence no ability to negotiate other FTAs.
Does mean access to single market though and restores some kind of control on migration.
Cost of Brexit really then becomes: a) financial services passporting, i.e. c. 20% of City business b) diminished geopolitical importance, esp. to US, as UK no longer able to influence EU trade policy c) the enormous amount of distracting faff in order to get this through EU, WTO etc.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
Not really, there's been enough 'remoaners' and the sick 'remaniacs'' jabs on here for leavers to accept a little in return, especially when they genuinely are moaning.
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
Just because Obama says stuff you don't want to hear doesn't mean that he hates Britain.
Obama was telling the May the truth which is much better than pretending there will be a deal. The USA has no big benefit from the split up of the EU. This is being done by the UK for the benefit of the UK.
If the UK is lucky it will keep the same trade relationship with the USA as we had before. That is the best we can hope for.
Yep - this was one of my main reasons for voting Remain. I just don't see us being able to get the kind of trade deals that would be necessary to compensate for no longer being part of the Single Market.
Except several Remain voting ministers have said how surprised they are at just how many countries are interested in doing a trade deal with the U.K.
The US is the exception, not the rule. Must be that fabled special relationship.
Everyone is interested I doing trade deals. That is different from getting then done. The terms, of course, are key.
Indeed so. But the language and mood music from Obama has been different from that of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I see this as significant. I appreciate others may disagree.
May & Turnbull were contemporaries at Oxford and will have known each other. An Australian friend is convinced a deal will be done and implemented as soon as we are out of the EU......
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
A points based system is unnecessarily bureaucratic. An income based system would work a lot better, set the longer term visa income level to a high level and lower income based visas are time limited and come with no dependency rights. That ensures the UK has seasonal workers and it has highly skilled workers as well without the box ticking waiting lists.
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
I've had zero time for Obama for about 6yrs. He takes a very long time to say almost nothing. Speechifying is the perfect description. Why anyone here is paying attention to him over Brexit perplexes me. He's well into lame duck mode.
My favourite observation of his platitudes remains this...
Correct. Whilst Scotland voted to remain in the EU the question asked was not whether Scots were willing to choose union with the EU over union with the UK. With more than 4 times as much trade to the latter as the former and with our economy vastly more integrated with the latter that is a question to which there is only one sane answer.
And yet 45% thought it a good idea to break From the uk even when it was claimed that could also mean breaking from the eu. Sane or not, let's never forget they only need 5% more to dream enough to ignore the risks, or even fewer if some previous union supporters stay home or switch sides. Some recent polls have been encouraging, but then they were encouraging a long way out last time and we still got nervous moments.
Sure, but last time out the UK was in the EU and therefore as long as Scotland obtained membership free trade with rUK was guaranteed. That is no longer the case. Brexit has changed the rules of the game to the SNPs disadvantage, something I think they anticipated which is why they were so keen on remaining.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
Not really, there's been enough 'remoaners' and the sick 'remaniacs'' jabs on here for leavers to accept a little in return, especially when they genuinely are moaning.
That may not be the case. Obama got elected in 2008 on the back of meaningless catchphrases like "Hope" and "Change". He has utterly failed to deliver on the promises. He started on a high (and a peace prize, ffs) and has declined ever since.
he's changed relations with iran and cuba. signed a new climate deal. changed healthcare.
supervised the massive expansion of execution by drone.
Quite a lot of changes, whether you agree with them or not
Agree about Cuba - a much-overdue move. The Iran deal *might* still come to bite him or his successors. His healthcare changes appear to be a mess in implementation, albeit well-meant.
But they're mere molehills when he promised Everest in 2008.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
If every time May rules out one of the LEAVE proposals she makes a 'gaffe' she'll be making a lot of them - and this won't have been the first, as she's already ruled out the '£100 million/week' for the NHS.....
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
Of course we have already told them to "jog on" when they wanted to bomb Syria. The special relationship really is less special after Iraq. I hope Hammond brings the hammer down on tax avoiding American companies like Google and Amazon, they are taking the piss.
Correct. Whilst Scotland voted to remain in the EU the question asked was not whether Scots were willing to choose union with the EU over union with the UK. With more than 4 times as much trade to the latter as the former and with our economy vastly more integrated with the latter that is a question to which there is only one sane answer.
And yet 45% thought it a good idea to break From the uk even when it was claimed that could also mean breaking from the eu. Sane or not, let's never forget they only need 5% more to dream enough to ignore the risks, or even fewer if some previous union supporters stay home or switch sides. Some recent polls have been encouraging, but then they were encouraging a long way out last time and we still got nervous moments.
Sure, but last time out the UK was in the EU and therefore as long as Scotland obtained membership free trade with rUK was guaranteed. That is no longer the case. Brexit has changed the rules of the game to the SNPs disadvantage, something I think they anticipated which is why they were so keen on remaining.
Correct. Brexit combined with low oil weds Scotland to the UK for at least the next 50 years.
As well as solving the Tory party split and ensuring 10 more years of Tory rule.
On top of it being the right thing to do.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osbo were so opposed...
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
That may not be the case. Obama got elected in 2008 on the back of meaningless catchphrases like "Hope" and "Change". He has utterly failed to deliver on the promises. He started on a high (and a peace prize, ffs) and has declined ever since.
he's ... changed healthcare...
Oh yes. He certainly has. Have you clocked what a giant, expensive, fuck-up Obamacare is? It's an egregious, unnecessary horror story of a policy. And his only domestic legislative 'achievement'. The USA would have been better served to have a potato as president for the last 8 years.
she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
Really?
Who did win the leadership election then?
Nobody. Her rival was bullied out of the contest so Mrs May was given a coronation by Con MP's.
Personally I'm keeping an open mind about Theresa for now but as we all said at the time, there will be questions about her legitimacy until she puts herself forward and wins a public vote.
Lord Ashcroft From my new poll: in Brexit negotiations, should we prioritise immigration control, or access to the single market? https://t.co/fPPw0LZ3fH
Not that you'd know it from the Parties, but both Labour & SNP voters prioritise control of immigration ahead of single market access.....
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
Not really, there's been enough 'remoaners' and the sick 'remaniacs'' jabs on here for leavers to accept a little in return, especially when they genuinely are moaning.
....current signs could hardly be more encouraging for Theresa May and her team. Two thirds of voters see her as the best available Prime Minister. People in our focus groups spontaneously described her as capable, grounded, smart, tough, feisty, realistic, tenacious, statesmanlike, confident, sharp – and stylish. Some even said that when she took over they had sighed with relief to have a leader who was right for the times. Nearly three quarters, including nearly half of those who voted Labour last year, said they trust May and Philip Hammond to manage the economy more than Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
US has had a terrible run of Presidents hasn't it?
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
I've had zero time for Obama for about 6yrs. He takes a very long time to say almost nothing. Speechifying is the perfect description. Why anyone here is paying attention to him over Brexit perplexes me. He's well into lame duck mode.
My favourite observation of his platitudes remains this...
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
The "special relationship" is and has always been a myth... We delude ourselves into thinking we are important to America when we are, infact, merely an insignificant "bit-player".
One good thing to come out of Brexit is that it will hopefully not only "reset" our relationship with the EU it will also "reset" our relationship with Uncle Sam.
If we realize we are unimportant and irrelevant to the US hopefully British prime Ministers will refuse to get involved in all their stupid, pointless wars from now on...
Lord Ashcroft From my new poll: in Brexit negotiations, should we prioritise immigration control, or access to the single market? https://t.co/fPPw0LZ3fH
Not that you'd know it from the Parties, but both Labour & SNP voters prioritise control of immigration ahead of single market access.....
Voters want immigration brought down drastically. Politicians think the economic price of that is too high, and it's virtually undo'able anyway.
So the politicians offered a vote recently to frame that choice, in an attempt to settle the matter for a generation, and the choice was, in fact, very clear.
Unfortunately, the politicians lost, and the voters made their feelings clear. So now the politicians have to try and deliver.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
Off topic, I was infuriated by Obama's comments at the G20. Puffed up pompous little Britain-hating prat.
I hope May tells him (or Clinton, who will doubtless be similiar) to jog on next time Uncle Sam wants our help. I also hope the US falls flat on its face with TTIP.
Special relationship my arse.
Just because Obama says stuff you don't want to hear doesn't mean that he hates Britain.
Oh, I think there's a strong body of evidence (not just this) to show he has a problem.
We are expected to heel to the US, but never the other way round.
I don't think there is any evidence at all to show that he hates Britain. I just think it is an easy get out for people who do not want to engage with what he says.
Yes. This whole Obama/Brexit thing is indicative, I reckon, of our ridiculous and counterproductive class structure. Obama, an intelligent and civilised fellow, gave his opinion about Britain leaving. My brother and sister in law decided thus to vote Brexit on the grounds that "the most pwerful man in the world has no right to tell us what to do". Actually Obama is most certainly not the most powerful man: he can be removed at any time by the democratic process. But more to the point he's just a bloke. His "rank" should be irrelevant, just his argument. I have heard good sense, homely hospitality, and pure poetry from a Nottinghamshire coal miner (when we had them).
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
All immigration systems are ticky-boxy but the point about a points system is that if you can't get permission to stay for one particular reason alone, but you're close for two or three or more different reasons, you can get permission on the basis of the combination of various different reasons.
In practice there's often little bit of this in any case; For example, when I applied for permanent residence in Japan I was a little bit short of the usual number of years you have to have the same visa category, but was also married to a Japanese national (but not for long enough to relevant according to the letter of the rules). They asked for some extra documentation about me being married, and I'm pretty sure they took that into account.
In itself that isn't really worthy of the ideological line that people seem to be drawing around it, but the political angle to demanding it is that if you say you're having a points system, people will tend to assume that the people they think should have visas (friends and family, and people they need for work) will have enough points, while all the criminals and deadbeats that they read about in the papers won't. Obviously this is more interesting as a proposal than as an actual policy, because once you do it the voters will think you're awarding the points wrong.
BBC 5 September 2016 Last updated at 00:01 BST The fall of the pound following the EU referendum has triggered a spending spree in London's property market from foreign investors. But these overseas buyers are no longer just targeting prime central locations. Changes in stamp duty mean that they are now interested in cheaper properties - pitting them head-to-head against jittery first-time buyers.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
Not really, there's been enough 'remoaners' and the sick 'remaniacs'' jabs on here for leavers to accept a little in return, especially when they genuinely are moaning.
If you do, I will just cease to engage with you. Which would be a shame, because your contributions are usually good ones.
No, not from you. But I was talking generally about the tone on this thread. Lots of moaning from leavers about Obama.
"Do you really want to go there?" Go where? I'm about to take the little 'un to a softplay, but doubt that's what you mean.
I read your post as a personal attack on me. If that wasn't your intent, that wasn't clear to me.
Of course, like most of us, from time to time I am likely to have a good vent on here about things that have riled me. Even though I probably shouldn't.
Correct. Whilst Scotland voted to remain in the EU the question asked was not whether Scots were willing to choose union with the EU over union with the UK. With more than 4 times as much trade to the latter as the former and with our economy vastly more integrated with the latter that is a question to which there is only one sane answer.
And yet 45% thought it a good idea to break From the uk even when it was claimed that could also mean breaking from the eu. Sane or not, let's never forget they only need 5% more to dream enough to ignore the risks, or even fewer if some previous union supporters stay home or switch sides. Some recent polls have been encouraging, but then they were encouraging a long way out last time and we still got nervous moments.
Sure, but last time out the UK was in the EU and therefore as long as Scotland obtained membership free trade with rUK was guaranteed. That is no longer the case. Brexit has changed the rules of the game to the SNPs disadvantage, something I think they anticipated which is why they were so keen on remaining.
But we were told at that point ad nauseum that there was NO CHANCE of an Indy Scotland gaining EU membership immediately or in the short or medium term, and perhaps not at all except on the most disadvantageous terms. Perhaps you even said it your self, your leader (among many others) was certainly implying it.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
The Labour leadership election looks on all available information as if Jeremy Corbyn is going to win quite comfortably, possibly very comfortably. None of that information is particularly reliable but it all points the same way. So if Owen Smith wins or even runs Jeremy Corbyn close, it's going to be a major shock.
....current signs could hardly be more encouraging for Theresa May and her team. Two thirds of voters see her as the best available Prime Minister. People in our focus groups spontaneously described her as capable, grounded, smart, tough, feisty, realistic, tenacious, statesmanlike, confident, sharp – and stylish. Some even said that when she took over they had sighed with relief to have a leader who was right for the times. Nearly three quarters, including nearly half of those who voted Labour last year, said they trust May and Philip Hammond to manage the economy more than Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
Yes - and we are still a global player of size, member of the security council etc. But we are no longer the "free trade" voice inside the EU, and therefore - on this dimension - less important to both USA (TTIP), China (e.g. we pushed against steel tariffs), and anyone else.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Sure - but by even bringing this up and ruling it out she gives Farage a needless free hit.
"We will be considering all systems and publish our proposals in due course blah blah long grass"
Daft to "rule it out".
Nigel who ?!?
Clearly she has considered the points based system and has rejected it, partly from her experience at the Home Office.
Despite the lack of a viable opposition in 2020 May knows her long term future is tied to the successful implementation of BREXIT and especially reducing immigration.
The Labour leadership election looks on all available information as if Jeremy Corbyn is going to win quite comfortably, possibly very comfortably. None of that information is particularly reliable but it all points the same way. So if Owen Smith wins or even runs Jeremy Corbyn close, it's going to be a major shock.
Honestly, I think some of you chaps are losing the plot. Who really gives a big rat's arse what a US president who will be gone in a few months said or thinks about something that can't happen until he has been out office for a couple of years?
Meanwhile, the Services PMI has been announced. 53.2 as opposed to 47.4 in July, the biggest jump in 20 years. So much for the economic armageddon that we were told would happen if we voted to leave the EU. Osborne (who his talk have to have an emergency budget, with tax and interest rate rises), HM Treasury and all those city economists, they were all wrong.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Chuka Umunna on Today calling for a reform of free movement in the wake of rising populist anti immigration parties across the EU while also stressing the vital importance of the UK maintaining some membership of the single market
An interesting interview with him, I thought.
But if the other EU states did not understand the need to make free movement work in the circumstances of today and in accordance with people's wishes in the last few years, why does he think they're going to make any changes now?
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Come on, Brexit (a completely undefined prospect upon which every man & his Old English Sheepdog can impose their prejudices, desires and fears) means..er..Brexit.
Still, the Department for EU exit has published a flowchart & a 3 page letter, so we're getting there.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
Yes - and we are still a global player of size, member of the security council etc. But we are no longer the "free trade" voice inside the EU, and therefore - on this dimension - less important to both USA (TTIP), China (e.g. we pushed against steel tariffs), and anyone else.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Ultimately, good luck to the USA and China in dealing with the EU in the future, it's only going to become more protectionist, anti-free trade and anti business.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Perhaps so.
In the final analysis the UK determined to leave the EU. The government must implement the will of the people on the best terms they might manage. It really is as simple as that.
On topic: of course Corbyn is going to win. Labour is immolating itself, and the only question is how low long it will take for the latter-day corbyn cool-aiders to wary of their messiah.
Until then, Labour is a sideshow. Like Brexit it will run and run and take up much more of the political "news" than it merits.
UKIP too is a completely busted flush.
For May, it means her only real opposition is the 50 or so hard-Brexit loons on her own benches. Despite all logic, they continue to attract support in some quarters of the press and on boards like this one.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
Yes - and we are still a global player of size, member of the security council etc. But we are no longer the "free trade" voice inside the EU, and therefore - on this dimension - less important to both USA (TTIP), China (e.g. we pushed against steel tariffs), and anyone else.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Our soft power to a large extent depends on high levels of immigration to the UK. The more people who have worked or studied in the UK, even for only a few years, and the more people who have a relative living in the UK, the better we will be viewed. However since controlling immigration is now so important, its difficult to see how we are going to be a soft power titan while at the same time being so isolationist.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
FWIW, I caught up with my (heavily Remain) Deutsche Bank friend at the weekend. He said most of the US banks have 50-100 year leases on the building in London (CW and the City) and aren't going to go anywhere.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
Yes, I've been speaking to a friend from JP and he says that the staff had a mini-revolt over an early memo saying that some might have to move to Paris. They've since taken back the memo and pledged to make it work in London.
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
All immigration systems are ticky-boxy but the point about a points system is that if you can't get permission to stay for one particular reason alone, but you're close for two or three or more different reasons, you can get permission on the basis of the combination of various different reasons.
In practice there's often little bit of this in any case; For example, when I applied for permanent residence in Japan I was a little bit short of the usual number of years you have to have the same visa category, but was also married to a Japanese national (but not for long enough to relevant according to the letter of the rules). They asked for some extra documentation about me being married, and I'm pretty sure they took that into account.
In itself that isn't really worthy of the ideological line that people seem to be drawing around it, but the political angle to demanding it is that if you say you're having a points system, people will tend to assume that the people they think should have visas (friends and family, and people they need for work) will have enough points, while all the criminals and deadbeats that they read about in the papers won't. Obviously this is more interesting as a proposal than as an actual policy, because once you do it the voters will think you're awarding the points wrong.
Good. Any system requires an ordering of applicants. Tick-boxes (i.e. a lexicographic ordering) cannot easily be adjusted in severity or laxity depending on changing immigration requirements. Points on the other hand enable trade-offs between categories, and can be scaled as required.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
US has had a terrible run of Presidents hasn't it?
What's the alternative to a "points-based system"? A ticky-boxy system?
Quotas unencumbered by the EU and in the national interest of the UK.
How is any given quota implemented? First come first served? Points? Tick-boxes? Money?
You might call the quota system Oliphant McTurbot and determine that only Jacobites with Scottish ancestry with a penchant for pretty nurses in suspenders be allowed entry. Entirely sensible of course.
It will come down to quotas. Opponents of the points based system say it encourages immigration by allowing for artificial thresholds and casting the net too wide.
On immigration, I'd much prefer to implement an income based system for visas, it would be less bureaucratic than a points based system and easier to implement. £36k per year gets someone a three year unlimited renewal visa, £18k per year gets someone a six month visa (renewable just once) and minimum wage jobs gets someone a three month seasonal work visa.
That's an easy system we could roll out globally and have reciprocated to British citizens looking to go overseas. If those wage barriers cause higher than expected immigration then they can be raised to cut immigration.
What about the Brits who live in Spain, Portugal..........?
''Dunno - but this is Mrs May's first gaffe - she shouldn't be ruling something out unless she has an alternative.''
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
The mandate is the BREXIT vote and the PM and her government implementing same in what they see as the best interests of the country.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
Yes - and we are still a global player of size, member of the security council etc. But we are no longer the "free trade" voice inside the EU, and therefore - on this dimension - less important to both USA (TTIP), China (e.g. we pushed against steel tariffs), and anyone else.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Our soft power to a large extent depends on high levels of immigration to the UK.
No. It is a function of i) the English language, ii) Our position in the cultural & Digital world:
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Perhaps so.
In the final analysis the UK determined to leave the EU. The government must implement the will of the people on the best terms they might manage. It really is as simple as that.
And if the people don't like the deal they can kick out the Government in 2020. However, by then we will be stuck with the deal.
''What trade relationship? The EU never made an FTA with the USA and looks unlikely to do so.''
Absolutely. And yet who is the villain in Obama's eyes? Protectionist, socialist France?
No, its free trade Britain.
Obama's a dead duck, and so is his TTIP deal without British support. That's why he was annoyed at the Brexit vote and still annoyed now.
Quite. We were of more use to the US inside the EU than we are to them outside of it - that's the US national interest.
The British public has just decided the British national interest - and frankly its a little ungracious of foreign heads of state to criticise them for it.....
But it's equally ungracious for the British public to be offended that our international partners are prioritising far bigger and important markets for trade deals.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
Yes - and we are still a global player of size, member of the security council etc. But we are no longer the "free trade" voice inside the EU, and therefore - on this dimension - less important to both USA (TTIP), China (e.g. we pushed against steel tariffs), and anyone else.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Our soft power to a large extent depends on high levels of immigration to the UK. The more people who have worked or studied in the UK, even for only a few years, and the more people who have a relative living in the UK, the better we will be viewed. However since controlling immigration is now so important, its difficult to see how we are going to be a soft power titan while at the same time being so isolationist.
The immigration that needs to be controlled is that of unskilled labour. Best way to solve that is to fix tax credits and force our unskilled labour to work beyond 16 hours a week....
That may not be the case. Obama got elected in 2008 on the back of meaningless catchphrases like "Hope" and "Change". He has utterly failed to deliver on the promises. He started on a high (and a peace prize, ffs) and has declined ever since.
he's ... changed healthcare...
Oh yes. He certainly has. Have you clocked what a giant, expensive, fuck-up Obamacare is? It's an egregious, unnecessary horror story of a policy. And his only domestic legislative 'achievement'. The USA would have been better served to have a potato as president for the last 8 years.
Obamacare, Stimulus Package, Financial Reforms of Wall Street, Gay Marriage, Student Finance Reform, Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell... Like them or note- these are big achievements.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
This is the basis of why I think Obama is bitter, at this time with the threats facing the world, now is not the time to water down or weaken the US-UK alliance. He is letting his personal loss (he was part of the remain campaign, of course) and personal weakness put a relationship that has stood the test of time on the backburner with no major ally to replace said relationship. We don't really need the US, our place in the world is not the same as theirs, we are going to be happy forging new relationships based on mutual trade with other countries around the world. The US has seen Japan turn away from them, India are also looking to Russia, China are their competitor and enemy, same goes for Russia, the French and Germans seem too tied up in the EU to care about what goes on outside of it. The US has never seemed as friendless in the world as it does today and Obama is doing his best to spite the relationship between the US and UK. It's an odd decision.
It takes two to tango. Even Cameron and the Foreign Office were bewildered by Obama's vacillating over Libya and Syria.
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
And his refusal to call Islamic terrorists Islamic. Obama is weak, unfortunately whoever replaces him is going to be an even bigger disaster.
US has had a terrible run of Presidents hasn't it?
voters, eh?
I don't think I would find it too challenging to compose a sentence with the names David Cameron and Spiro Agnew.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Perhaps so.
In the final analysis the UK determined to leave the EU. The government must implement the will of the people on the best terms they might manage. It really is as simple as that.
No second referendum protests and Regrexit angst at Chez Jack then?
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
Hardly much of a mandate Comrade since no one knows seems to know what the hell Brexit is ?
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
Perhaps so.
In the final analysis the UK determined to leave the EU. The government must implement the will of the people on the best terms they might manage. It really is as simple as that.
And if the people don't like the deal they can kick out the Government in 2020. However, by then we will be stuck with the deal.
If the voters really really don't like Brexit, or the flavour we get, then a new party can spring up representing those views.
Of course the issue is that 50% of voters won't like the deal for one reason, while 50% won't like it for precisely the opposite reason, hence any re-EU party will fail.
Plus practically, there is of course no way we could go back, or could get a good deal if we did go back to the EU saying it was all a huge mistake.
We are where we are and we need to make the best of it.
This is no surprise. Sarkozy is running to be the candidate next year. Expect more 'get tough' stuff along similar lines.
Slight problem with that is that all of them fail EU asylum rules in France let alone Britain. The problem is that they've let numbers grow past the point that you can send a few people in, to arrest and then deport....
I'd have thought it quite easy for the British government to say that anyone in France is in a civilized country and has no need to flee from it to Britain to claim asylum. Indeed, we would consider it an insult to our ally to think that people would need to leave it to claim asylum and, therefore, no asylum claims will be entertained from anyone reaching Britain from France. Or indeed from anyone in France.
Whatever Obama's weaknesses, we now - post-Brexit, have to confront the reality that we are a less important partner than we were. People bitching about Obama are just projecting that deep down, they know this and are upset about our diminished status.
All we can do is make sure our economy remains healthy and growing, as long as that is the case we are important whether other countries like it or not.
Yes - and we are still a global player of size, member of the security council etc. But we are no longer the "free trade" voice inside the EU, and therefore - on this dimension - less important to both USA (TTIP), China (e.g. we pushed against steel tariffs), and anyone else.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Our soft power to a large extent depends on high levels of immigration to the UK. The more people who have worked or studied in the UK, even for only a few years, and the more people who have a relative living in the UK, the better we will be viewed. However since controlling immigration is now so important, its difficult to see how we are going to be a soft power titan while at the same time being so isolationist.
I hope we won't become isolationist. If emigration is reduced from very high levels, I don't think that spells isolationism.
However, folks globally do think the UK is shutting its borders, harassing Poles, etc. We need to get on top of that.
In reality, most (all?) Western countries now have significant issues with volumes of migration - not least those within the EU. How else did AfD beat CDU in Merkel's home region yesterday.
There's an opportunity perhaps for UK to be a leader and advocate for a new kind of migration settlement, if we can figure one out.
Funny the area you would think "build that wall" would be most receptive would be a state like Arizona, but the local first time incumbent is distancing himself from Trump.
Honestly, I think some of you chaps are losing the plot. Who really gives a big rat's arse what a US president who will be gone in a few months said or thinks about something that can't happen until he has been out office for a couple of years?
Meanwhile, the Services PMI has been announced. 53.2 as opposed to 47.4 in July, the biggest jump in 20 years. So much for the economic armageddon that we were told would happen if we voted to leave the EU. Osborne (who his talk have to have an emergency budget, with tax and interest rate rises), HM Treasury and all those city economists, they were all wrong.
Well quite. I'm having fun with TV shows on Twitter instead.
Comments
More seriously, UKIP are a busted flush. Farage was 95% of their brand, and when he is not leader they fall in the polls. The other 5% was leaving Europe.
Now, if they could reinvent themselves as a left of centre economically, right of centre socially, they'll destroy Labour oop north. But I can't see it happening...
Leaving Trump out of it (and I cannot see him being anything other than a disastrous president), if Hilary wins she will be starting with much lower expectations on her. It may be possible for her to exceed those expectations and be a boring managerial president.
But IMO neither Hilary or Trump have the vision, and the leadership skills to achieve that vision, that the US has desperately needed for a couple of decades.
Doubtless Obama would convince himself so, but I think he is bitter about the result, felt personally rejected (as YS has agreed downthread) and I think that extends to some extent across the existing US administration.
It is absolutely not in US interests in my view to communicate a weakening of the US-UK axis to the world in this way, particularly because it might make it politically difficult for May, now, to not retaliate with a similar message to the US in kind, and I have also indicated an alternative message the US could have given through which it could have hedged its bets.
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=980&bih=1184&q=conservatives+tree+logo&oq=conservatives+tree+logo
A ticky-boxy system?
The alternative is free movement with a few fig leaves.
Especially when she does not have the authority of winning either a general or leadership election.
supervised the massive expansion of execution by drone.
Quite a lot of changes, whether you agree with them or not
Who did win the leadership election then?
From my new poll: in Brexit negotiations, should we prioritise immigration control, or access to the single market? https://t.co/fPPw0LZ3fH
The government should say that Britain is leaving the EU because it wants no part of the EU's supranational ambitions. The relationship Britain ought to propose is one between law-making governments -- the U.K. on one side and the EU and its member states on the other...subject to that, Britain will seek the maximum amount of economic integration and diplomatic co-operation.
= Norway option is out, because means automatic application of EU legislation
= Turkey option is out, because means joining customs union and hence no ability to negotiate other FTAs.
Does mean access to single market though and restores some kind of control on migration.
Cost of Brexit really then becomes:
a) financial services passporting, i.e. c. 20% of City business
b) diminished geopolitical importance, esp. to US, as UK no longer able to influence EU trade policy
c) the enormous amount of distracting faff in order to get this through EU, WTO etc.
As for UK-US interdependence, the following is interesting:
http://www.ofii.org/sites/default/files/FDIUS2014.pdf
Do you really want to go there?
If you do, I will just cease to engage with you. Which would be a shame, because your contributions are usually good ones.
But they're mere molehills when he promised Everest in 2008.
As well as solving the Tory party split and ensuring 10 more years of Tory rule.
On top of it being the right thing to do.
Makes you wonder why Cameron and Osbo were so opposed...
There has been a vacuum of US global leadership over the last 8 years, into which all sorts of players have entered.
Personally I'm keeping an open mind about Theresa for now but as we all said at the time, there will be questions about her legitimacy until she puts herself forward and wins a public vote.
"We will be considering all systems and publish our proposals in due course blah blah long grass"
Daft to "rule it out".
'What's the alternative to a "points-based system"?
A ticky-boxy system?'
A 'needs' based system with work permits.
"Do you really want to go there?"
Go where? I'm about to take the little 'un to a softplay, but doubt that's what you mean.
....current signs could hardly be more encouraging for Theresa May and her team. Two thirds of voters see her as the best available Prime Minister. People in our focus groups spontaneously described her as capable, grounded, smart, tough, feisty, realistic, tenacious, statesmanlike, confident, sharp – and stylish. Some even said that when she took over they had sighed with relief to have a leader who was right for the times. Nearly three quarters, including nearly half of those who voted Labour last year, said they trust May and Philip Hammond to manage the economy more than Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/09/lord-ashcroft-yes-my-focus-groups-like-mays-confident-start-but-she-faces-three-potential-pitfalls.html
So the politicians offered a vote recently to frame that choice, in an attempt to settle the matter for a generation, and the choice was, in fact, very clear.
Unfortunately, the politicians lost, and the voters made their feelings clear. So now the politicians have to try and deliver.
Obama, an intelligent and civilised fellow, gave his opinion about Britain leaving. My brother and sister in law decided thus to vote Brexit on the grounds that "the most pwerful man in the world has no right to tell us what to do". Actually Obama is most certainly not the most powerful man: he can be removed at any time by the democratic process. But more to the point he's just a bloke. His "rank" should be irrelevant, just his argument.
I have heard good sense, homely hospitality, and pure poetry from a Nottinghamshire coal miner (when we had them).
In practice there's often little bit of this in any case; For example, when I applied for permanent residence in Japan I was a little bit short of the usual number of years you have to have the same visa category, but was also married to a Japanese national (but not for long enough to relevant according to the letter of the rules). They asked for some extra documentation about me being married, and I'm pretty sure they took that into account.
In itself that isn't really worthy of the ideological line that people seem to be drawing around it, but the political angle to demanding it is that if you say you're having a points system, people will tend to assume that the people they think should have visas (friends and family, and people they need for work) will have enough points, while all the criminals and deadbeats that they read about in the papers won't. Obviously this is more interesting as a proposal than as an actual policy, because once you do it the voters will think you're awarding the points wrong.
5 September 2016 Last updated at 00:01 BST
The fall of the pound following the EU referendum has triggered a spending spree in London's property market from foreign investors.
But these overseas buyers are no longer just targeting prime central locations.
Changes in stamp duty mean that they are now interested in cheaper properties - pitting them head-to-head against jittery first-time buyers.
Of course, like most of us, from time to time I am likely to have a good vent on here about things that have riled me. Even though I probably shouldn't.
Perhaps you even said it your self, your leader (among many others) was certainly implying it.
https://twitter.com/Zarkwan/status/767389272085233664
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/revolution-against-rich-parasites-at-utopian-burning-man-festiva/
What particularly winds me up is when things like foreign investors say that they will have to revisit their investment strategies if the single market isn't included (Japan) or Obama says other trade deals will have to be sorted out first- this winds up Brexit morons.
First they were told. And second do they remotely understand capitalism? Anyone who supports Brexit has the economic competence of an illiterate with profound learning difficulties. But at least we've got control back......knobheads- with a capital K and very large Head.
We ought to declare intention to invest significantly and publicly more in hard and soft power (cultural, educational links) to boost our influence beyond trade.
Clearly she has considered the points based system and has rejected it, partly from her experience at the Home Office.
Despite the lack of a viable opposition in 2020 May knows her long term future is tied to the successful implementation of BREXIT and especially reducing immigration.
Meanwhile, the Services PMI has been announced. 53.2 as opposed to 47.4 in July, the biggest jump in 20 years. So much for the economic armageddon that we were told would happen if we voted to leave the EU. Osborne (who his talk have to have an emergency budget, with tax and interest rate rises), HM Treasury and all those city economists, they were all wrong.
*No-one* wants to move to Paris or Frankfurt, including the bosses, so the most likely outcome are shell trading branch in the eurozone, if we lose the financial services passport, and have to nominally offer financial services through those.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3773595/Riddle-loan-let-shamed-Labour-MP-Keith-Vaz-pay-400k-cash-luxury-sex-flat.html
But if the other EU states did not understand the need to make free movement work in the circumstances of today and in accordance with people's wishes in the last few years, why does he think they're going to make any changes now?
Still, the Department for EU exit has published a flowchart & a 3 page letter, so we're getting there.
In the final analysis the UK determined to leave the EU. The government must implement the will of the people on the best terms they might manage. It really is as simple as that.
Until then, Labour is a sideshow. Like Brexit it will run and run and take up much more of the political "news" than it merits.
UKIP too is a completely busted flush.
For May, it means her only real opposition is the 50 or so hard-Brexit loons on her own benches. Despite all logic, they continue to attract support in some quarters of the press and on boards like this one.
Any system requires an ordering of applicants. Tick-boxes (i.e. a lexicographic ordering) cannot easily be adjusted in severity or laxity depending on changing immigration requirements. Points on the other hand enable trade-offs between categories, and can be scaled as required.
It will come down to quotas. Opponents of the points based system say it encourages immigration by allowing for artificial thresholds and casting the net too wide.
Yup
http://www.portland-communications.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The-Soft-Power-30_press-release.pdf
Of course the issue is that 50% of voters won't like the deal for one reason, while 50% won't like it for precisely the opposite reason, hence any re-EU party will fail.
Plus practically, there is of course no way we could go back, or could get a good deal if we did go back to the EU saying it was all a huge mistake.
We are where we are and we need to make the best of it.
However, folks globally do think the UK is shutting its borders, harassing Poles, etc.
We need to get on top of that.
In reality, most (all?) Western countries now have significant issues with volumes of migration - not least those within the EU. How else did AfD beat CDU in Merkel's home region yesterday.
There's an opportunity perhaps for UK to be a leader and advocate for a new kind of migration settlement, if we can figure one out.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/05/donald-trump-blasts-republican-senator-jeff-flake-as-very-weak
Presumably he knows what his more electorally savvy in his own state.