"One is that the polls show that the 'No' vote is strongest in the south of the country, where turnout is normally lowest.
"It may be that a significant number of those in the south who say they are going to vote 'No' will end up staying at home," said Federico Benini, head of the Winpoll agency."
The question who did commission the Deloitte report is obvious and glaring. No doubt we will find out in due course.
Hasn't it been reported that it was uncommissioned?
Deloittes themselves have acknowledged that.
The more interesting question is who at Deloittes leaked it to the Times.
I'm fairly certain it was leaked to The Times by someone inside the Government.
You're being coy about the basis for even a fair certainty. Why?
Because some people will automatically think it was leaked by Osborne/Cameron or their associates because I said it was leaked by someone inside the Government.
The memo does have the ring of authenticity of the various tensions within government.
As I noted today, the Government haven't disputed the contents of the memo.
Grayling said the 30K figure was rubbish.
That was the solutions part of the memo not the problems facing the Government part of the memo.
I haven't seen it. But if, as is now being stated, it was prepared without input from No10 or the Cabinet Office is it any more than a statement of the obvious?
If you want to work out who leaked the Deloitte report, you have to ask yourself the question who benefits from the leak. The answer seems to be: someone who is an opponent of Theresa May's style of government, who is dissatisfied with the performance of the Three Brexiteers and who wants to see more structure and organisation around the process.
The obvious suspects present themselves naturally. Deloitte are not on that list.
He said open borders and free movement for skilled migrants were "absolutely" important to the success of the technology sector in the UK. It was Mr Pichai's first European broadcast interview since he became chief executive last year. Sources at the technology company also said if barriers were thrown up to skilled immigration following the vote to leave the European Union, some of Google's investment could be at risk.
I reckon Google has been talking to HMG.
But why selectively quote? There is also this:
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
If you want to work out who leaked the Deloitte report, you have to ask yourself the question who benefits from the leak. The answer seems to be: someone who is an opponent of Theresa May's style of government, who is dissatisfied with the performance of the Three Brexiteers and who wants to see more structure and organisation around the process.
The obvious suspects present themselves naturally. Deloitte are not on that list.
He said open borders and free movement for skilled migrants were "absolutely" important to the success of the technology sector in the UK. It was Mr Pichai's first European broadcast interview since he became chief executive last year. Sources at the technology company also said if barriers were thrown up to skilled immigration following the vote to leave the European Union, some of Google's investment could be at risk.
I reckon Google has been talking to HMG.
But why selectively quote? There is also this:
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
The question who did commission the Deloitte report is obvious and glaring. No doubt we will find out in due course.
Hasn't it been reported that it was uncommissioned?
Deloittes themselves have acknowledged that.
The more interesting question is who at Deloittes leaked it to the Times.
I'm fairly certain it was leaked to The Times by someone inside the Government.
You're being coy about the basis for even a fair certainty. Why?
Because some people will automatically think it was leaked by Osborne/Cameron or their associates because I said it was leaked by someone inside the Government.
The memo does have the ring of authenticity of the various tensions within government.
As I noted today, the Government haven't disputed the contents of the memo.
Grayling said the 30K figure was rubbish.
30k sounds awfully like a figure intended to win them business - you could hire 30k permanent civil servants and pay them loads of money and pension rights, or you could get us to do it on a consultancy basis for half the cost of recruiting and paying those 30k...
"One is that the polls show that the 'No' vote is strongest in the south of the country, where turnout is normally lowest.
"It may be that a significant number of those in the south who say they are going to vote 'No' will end up staying at home," said Federico Benini, head of the Winpoll agency."
Wonder where I've heard this before.
"The most worrying aspect for Renzi is that as the number of undecided voters declines, the lead for 'No' appears to be rising."
If you want to work out who leaked the Deloitte report, you have to ask yourself the question who benefits from the leak. The answer seems to be: someone who is an opponent of Theresa May's style of government, who is dissatisfied with the performance of the Three Brexiteers and who wants to see more structure and organisation around the process.
The obvious suspects present themselves naturally. Deloitte are not on that list.
Given that it was a Deloitte internal memo i'm not sure who else would have leaked it...
After Donald Trump’s election as president, Pamela Ramsey Taylor, director of the Clay County Development Corp., took to Facebook to comment on the upcoming shift from Obama to Melania Trump, reportedly writing: “It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels.”
Even if it was not intended to be racially derogatory (which I doubt) it's still an awful comment to describe any woman as an "ape".
Absolutely. The fact that Michelle Obama is classy, beautiful and dignified really does not come into it. In this country I think this would be prosecutable. A sick, sick individual.
I wouldn't want it to be prosecutable, because it's good for people like Pamela Taylor to show themselves in their true colours. Such a comment says far more about her than anyone else could.
From what I could pick up, I thought Michelle Obama had done some good work for women's rights and education. Ad hominem or bitchy comments should be beneath opponents. Regrettably we are getting a lot from the Democrats because that is what they do and from the Republicans because it is payback time.
Calling a black woman an ape goes well beyond bitchy.
Mr. Royale, there were legitimate reasons to vote to Remain (though I feel these were eclipsed by the reasons to vote Leave). Must agree with Mr. Observer about the term 'bottled'.
So be it. Those who were for Leave, but chickened out at the final hurdle, and now feel qualified to hurl mud at those who did vote Leave I feel entitled to call bottlers.
The question who did commission the Deloitte report is obvious and glaring. No doubt we will find out in due course.
Hasn't it been reported that it was uncommissioned?
Deloittes themselves have acknowledged that.
The more interesting question is who at Deloittes leaked it to the Times.
I'm fairly certain it was leaked to The Times by someone inside the Government.
You're being coy about the basis for even a fair certainty. Why?
Because some people will automatically think it was leaked by Osborne/Cameron or their associates because I said it was leaked by someone inside the Government.
The memo does have the ring of authenticity of the various tensions within government.
As I noted today, the Government haven't disputed the contents of the memo.
Your predisposition to believe its authenticity shines through. Why would the government engage in discussion of a document that has been dismissed as an uncommissioned opinion lacking any credibility - Deloittes for crisake?
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
If you want to work out who leaked the Deloitte report, you have to ask yourself the question who benefits from the leak. The answer seems to be: someone who is an opponent of Theresa May's style of government, who is dissatisfied with the performance of the Three Brexiteers and who wants to see more structure and organisation around the process.
The obvious suspects present themselves naturally. Deloitte are not on that list.
If you want to work out who leaked the Deloitte report, you have to ask yourself the question who benefits from the leak. The answer seems to be: someone who is an opponent of Theresa May's style of government, who is dissatisfied with the performance of the Three Brexiteers and who wants to see more structure and organisation around the process.
The obvious suspects present themselves naturally. Deloitte are not on that list.
I am not completely sure of your logic. It goes so far but if someone (lets call him George for ease of reference) did do that then the gap between him and May is, to put it politely, unlikely to narrow. And George would know that. Because he is a very clever boy.
"But on the finer detail of defining the free movement of people, she added: "I personally am of the view that we will have to discuss further with the (European) Commission when this freedom of movement applies from."
Merkel said that if, for example, someone came to Germany from eastern Europe and worked only for a short time but acquired a life-long claim on welfare benefits, "then I see a question about which we must talk again."
I imagine this isn't entirely unrelated to the new realpolitik regarding the election of Donald Trump.
The calculation has changed. Slightly, but it's changed.
The EU now needs British engagement on military and security matters. That outweighs its general petulance about free movement as a pillar of its theology.
Michael Fallon persuaded the EU to drop their army and strengthen NATO at yesterday's meeting.
The new politique is changing lots of positions while the UK benefits. The Irish are also expressing remorse today over the lack of giving Cameron more and they are one of many in the EU who are coming to the realisation that a deal has to be done with the UK.
"One is that the polls show that the 'No' vote is strongest in the south of the country, where turnout is normally lowest.
"It may be that a significant number of those in the south who say they are going to vote 'No' will end up staying at home," said Federico Benini, head of the Winpoll agency."
Wonder where I've heard this before.
"The most worrying aspect for Renzi is that as the number of undecided voters declines, the lead for 'No' appears to be rising."
It looks like it's NO alright.
£50 @ 1.38
This time the 'favoured' option is BEHIND at the gun !
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
If right, it may solve some of the problems facing physics. And probably create new ones at the same time ...
It's some forty years since I did theoretical physics, and my field wasn't gravity but elementary particles and weak interactions, but looking at his original 2010 paper I would say it looks like a serious and very interesting hypothesis.
Mr. Royale, not trying to have a go at you. I agree we're better off out, and voted that way. Democracy's all about legitimate but varying opinions, after all (which is why I also think it's not on that some are trying to ignore the result of the referendum).
Mr. Royale, not trying to have a go at you. I agree we're better off out, and voted that way. Democracy's all about legitimate but varying opinions, after all (which is why I also think it's not on that some are trying to ignore the result of the referendum).
Of course. I just get a bit frustrated with the same old tired arguments being thrown at Leavers, and assumptions made about their way of thinking.
Which is probably why I've been a bit more disengaged as of late.
I don't think there's any Brexit deal where we remain in some EU or European institutions. There's the customs union, of course, but that isn't the same as being part of the EU, and nor is it an institution. Even the EEA means quitting the ECJ. We will remain a member of the ECHR and Council of Europe (for the time being) no matter what.
I think paying into the EU is different, as long as the government can demonstrate its for access, with a net benefit trading gain, and a net saving, and not a compulsory membership fee. As usual, voters will weight up the costs and benefits for themselves.
And, for the record, I'm probably more of a hard Brexiteer than the latter, for what it's worth. I'd be satisfied with either. Just more satisfied with the former.
This whole "a-ha! you Brexiteers can't agree amongst yourselves what you want!" has always been viewed as be some sort of killer argument by Remainers since Day 1, but it fails to take account that the no.1 objective of Brexiteers is to quit because we viewed remaining in the EU as a neverending escalator to closer harmonisation and integration.
(And I'm perfectly realistic, thank you very much.)
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"bottled it" ?
LOL. Nope. I made a rational and sane decision based on the information at hand: that the case, to my mind at least, was not made. Clearly you differed. Then again, I'm not sure you ever fully considered alternative views. In fact, your use of the word 'bottled' is evidence towards that.
I feel like hurling a few insults towards you, but instead I'll just LOL again.
And my vote (which I was honest about throughout) wasn't exactly relevant to this conversation.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
"Some Leavers".
There you go again. Lumping me into a collective, and dismissing me accordingly, without even bothering to address my point. And yet you have the nerve to tell me what posts of mine are reasonable or not?
It's very simple: this is good news. Rather than make a balanced post including the positive parts of Google's announcement in your post, you selectively highlighted the reservations and negatives. As you have done for months, now, with your posts on here.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
A patriotic champion of British business like yourself could have at least introduced your argument with "This is great news, but".
But you didn't. Because everything must be framed to make Brexit look dicey, disorganised, reckless and ridiculous.
If right, it may solve some of the problems facing physics. And probably create new ones at the same time ...
It's some forty years since I did theoretical physics, and my field wasn't gravity but elementary particles and weak interactions, but looking at his original 2010 paper I would say it looks like a serious and very interesting hypothesis.
Looks very interesting. Started to read the new paper, but lost it after a few paragraphs. I guess BBC Horizon will update me in due course.
"But on the finer detail of defining the free movement of people, she added: "I personally am of the view that we will have to discuss further with the (European) Commission when this freedom of movement applies from."
Merkel said that if, for example, someone came to Germany from eastern Europe and worked only for a short time but acquired a life-long claim on welfare benefits, "then I see a question about which we must talk again."
I imagine this isn't entirely unrelated to the new realpolitik regarding the election of Donald Trump.
The calculation has changed. Slightly, but it's changed.
The EU now needs British engagement on military and security matters. That outweighs its general petulance about free movement as a pillar of its theology.
Michael Fallon persuaded the EU to drop their army and strengthen NATO at yesterday's meeting.
The new politique is changing lots of positions while the UK benefits. The Irish are also expressing remorse today over the lack of giving Cameron more and they are one of many in the EU who are coming to the realisation that a deal has to be done with the UK.
Agreed. There won't be any EU at all unless it can be secured and defended with the active cooperation and help of its near neighbours.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
People seem to like it for some reason !
Tricky to keep a horse or two in the middle of London on ~ £60k household income, so not really for me.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
"Some Leavers".
There you go again. Lumping me into a collective, and dismissing me accordingly, without even bothering to address my point. And yet you have the nerve to tell me what posts of mine are reasonable or not?
It's very simple: this is good news. Rather than make a balanced post including the positive parts of Google's announcement in your post, you selectively highlighted the reservations and negatives. As you have done for months, now, with your posts on here.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
A patriotic champion of British business like yourself could have at least introduced your argument with "This is great news, but".
But you didn't. Because everything must be framed to make Brexit look dicey, disorganised, reckless and ridiculous.
I don't think there's any Brexit deal where we remain in some EU or European institutions. There's the customs union, of course, but that isn't the same as being part of the EU, and nor is it an institution. Even the EEA means quitting the ECJ. We will remain a member of the ECHR and Council of Europe (for the time being) no matter what.
I think paying into the EU is different, as long as the government can demonstrate its for access, with a net benefit trading gain, and a net saving, and not a compulsory membership fee. As usual, voters will weight up the costs and benefits for themselves.
And, for the record, I'm probably more of a hard Brexiteer than the latter, for what it's worth. I'd be satisfied with either. Just more satisfied with the former.
This whole "a-ha! you Brexiteers can't agree amongst yourselves what you want!" has always been viewed as be some sort of killer argument by Remainers since Day 1, but it fails to take account that the no.1 objective of Brexiteers is to quit because we viewed remaining in the EU as a neverending escalator to closer harmonisation and integration.
(And I'm perfectly realistic, thank you very much.)
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"bottled it" ?
LOL. Nope. I made a rational and sane decision based on the information at hand: that the case, to my mind at least, was not made. Clearly you differed. Then again, I'm not sure you ever fully considered alternative views. In fact, your use of the word 'bottled' is evidence towards that.
I feel like hurling a few insults towards you, but instead I'll just LOL again.
And my vote (which I was honest about throughout) wasn't exactly relevant to this conversation.
Your problem (and you are very clever and knowledgeable) is that there is a slight undertone of arrogance and know-it-all'ness that underlines most of your posts. This grates, and gets under people's skin. Normally, I can dust it off. Today, I am grouchy.
Perhaps it's worth thinking about how you come across.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
"Some Leavers".
There you go again. Lumping me into a collective, and dismissing me accordingly, without even bothering to address my point. And yet you have the nerve to tell me what posts of mine are reasonable or not?
It's very simple: this is good news. Rather than make a balanced post including the positive parts of Google's announcement in your post, you selectively highlighted the reservations and negatives. As you have done for months, now, with your posts on here.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
A patriotic champion of British business like yourself could have at least introduced your argument with "This is great news, but".
But you didn't. Because everything must be framed to make Brexit look dicey, disorganised, reckless and ridiculous.
Yep, whatever.
Yes, it tells a lot about you. As does your response.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
People seem to like it for some reason !
Tricky to keep a horse or two in the middle of London on ~ £60k household income, so not really for me.
When foreigners think of Britain the first thing that pops up is London.
For them they don't know anything about the other parts of the country, London is the only place they know it exists.
Just like most of us don't know much about foreign cities except their largest one or their capital (example France=Paris for most).
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
Probably because Google thinks those people who choose to live in London are better employees than those people choosing to live in Sunderland.
I don't think there's any Brexit deal where we remain in some EU or European institutions. There's the customs union, of course, but that isn't the same as being part of the EU, and nor is it an institution. Even the EEA means quitting the ECJ. We will remain a member of the ECHR and Council of Europe (for the time being) no matter what.
I think paying into the EU is different, as long as the government can demonstrate its for access, with a net benefit trading gain, and a net saving, and not a compulsory membership fee. As usual, voters will weight up the costs and benefits for themselves.
And, for the record, I'm probably more of a hard Brexiteer than the latter, for what it's worth. I'd be satisfied with either. Just more satisfied with the former.
This whole "a-ha! you Brexiteers can't agree amongst yourselves what you want!" has always been viewed as be some sort of killer argument by Remainers since Day 1, but it fails to take account that the no.1 objective of Brexiteers is to quit because we viewed remaining in the EU as a neverending escalator to closer harmonisation and integration.
(And I'm perfectly realistic, thank you very much.)
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"bottled it" ?
LOL. Nope. I made a rational and sane decision based on the information at hand: that the case, to my mind at least, was not made. Clearly you differed. Then again, I'm not sure you ever fully considered alternative views. In fact, your use of the word 'bottled' is evidence towards that.
I feel like hurling a few insults towards you, but instead I'll just LOL again.
And my vote (which I was honest about throughout) wasn't exactly relevant to this conversation.
Your problem (and you are very clever and knowledgeable) is that there is a slight undertone of arrogance and know-it-all'ness that underlines most of your posts. This grates, and gets under people's skin. Normally, I can dust it off. Today, I am grouchy.
Perhaps it's worth thinking about how you come across.
I'm off.
Another poster who tries to psychoanalyse me.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
Probably because Google thinks those people who choose to live in London are better employees than those people choosing to live in Sunderland.
No, since people would move across the country to work for them. I suspect it is more to do with London being a trendier place to be.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think some Leavers currently.
"Some Leavers".
There you go again. Lumping me into a collective, and dismissing me accordingly, without even bothering to address my point. And yet you have the nerve to tell me what posts of mine are reasonable or not?
It's very simple: this is good news. Rather than make a balanced post including the positive parts of Google's announcement in your post, you selectively highlighted the reservations and negatives. As you have done for months, now, with your posts on here.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
A patriotic champion of British business like yourself could have at least introduced your argument with "This is great news, but".
But you didn't. Because everything must be framed to make Brexit look dicey, disorganised, reckless and ridiculous.
Yep, whatever.
Yes, it tells a lot about you. As does your response.
No, it just says there are more important things in life than arguing with someone who reads things into posts that aren't there and who will not accept that fact when it is explained. It's really not very important.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think you are reading too much into things at the moment. I posted a quote and said that I thought Google had spoken to HMG. That's all I intended to do. I was not seeking to make any other point whatsoever. It's kind of like the Poppy Police on here with some Leavers currently.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
Probably because Google thinks those people who choose to live in London are better employees than those people choosing to live in Sunderland.
No, since people would move across the country to work for them. I suspect it is more to do with London being a trendier place to be.
Well I'm glad they want to invest in the UK, even if it is London !
"But on the finer detail of defining the free movement of people, she added: "I personally am of the view that we will have to discuss further with the (European) Commission when this freedom of movement applies from."
Merkel said that if, for example, someone came to Germany from eastern Europe and worked only for a short time but acquired a life-long claim on welfare benefits, "then I see a question about which we must talk again."
I imagine this isn't entirely unrelated to the new realpolitik regarding the election of Donald Trump.
The calculation has changed. Slightly, but it's changed.
The EU now needs British engagement on military and security matters. That outweighs its general petulance about free movement as a pillar of its theology.
Michael Fallon persuaded the EU to drop their army and strengthen NATO at yesterday's meeting.
The new politique is changing lots of positions while the UK benefits. The Irish are also expressing remorse today over the lack of giving Cameron more and they are one of many in the EU who are coming to the realisation that a deal has to be done with the UK.
Agreed. There won't be any EU at all unless it can be secured and defended with the active cooperation and help of its near neighbours.
All this hope that the EU will act in a sane manner! I hope you are all right.
The question who did commission the Deloitte report is obvious and glaring. No doubt we will find out in due course.
Sounds like it was commissioned by themselves. Who else would commission a report that was intended for internal Deloite consumption?
Who leaked it then to the press and presented as if it was a civil service paper?
I got the impression last night that the Deloite paper was a Whitehall one.
Someone from Deloite or the Times has been sloppy.
I don't think "sloppy" quite does it
The Managing Partner of Deloitte was signatory to a Remain letter in June. They clearly have an interest in Brexit failing.
Very few people have an interest in Brexit failing. If it goes wrong we all end up suffering - even the managing partner of Deloitte.
There are a huge number of people who want Brexit to fail - in the sense of it being blocked/stopped/people scared into recanting etc.
There are a lot of people who do not want it to happen because they think it will be bad for the country, but that is different. If it is to happen, then it has to be a success. That's why getting it right is so important.
My view is that from where we are now it would be worse for the country not to Brexit than to Brexit because remaining from here would be an unbridled national humiliation. But I wish that we weren't here. I lost, though, and am getting over it :-)
The question who did commission the Deloitte report is obvious and glaring. No doubt we will find out in due course.
Sounds like it was commissioned by themselves. Who else would commission a report that was intended for internal Deloite consumption?
Who leaked it then to the press and presented as if it was a civil service paper?
I got the impression last night that the Deloite paper was a Whitehall one.
Someone from Deloite or the Times has been sloppy.
I don't think "sloppy" quite does it
The Managing Partner of Deloitte was signatory to a Remain letter in June. They clearly have an interest in Brexit failing.
Very few people have an interest in Brexit failing. If it goes wrong we all end up suffering - even the managing partner of Deloitte.
There are a huge number of people who want Brexit to fail - in the sense of it being blocked/stopped/people scared into recanting etc.
There are a huge number of people in key positions,who want Brexit to fail - in the sense of it being blocked/stopped/people scared into recanting etc.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
It's a credible hypothesis, and one which I agree with.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
I think some Leavers currently.
"
Yep, whatever.
Yes, it tells a lot about you. As does your response.
No, it just says there are more important things in life than arguing with someone who reads things into posts that aren't there and who will not accept that fact when it is explained. It's really not very important.
Reading things into posts that aren't there is precisely the point. You are choosing, consciously or sub-consciously, to exclude it and I think that is informative about your views, and shows an inherent lack of balance.
I agree there are more important things than arguing about it with you, though.
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"bottled it" ?
LOL. Nope. I made a rational and sane decision based on the information at hand: that the case, to my mind at least, was not made. Clearly you differed. Then again, I'm not sure you ever fully considered alternative views. In fact, your use of the word 'bottled' is evidence towards that.
I feel like hurling a few insults towards you, but instead I'll just LOL again.
And my vote (which I was honest about throughout) wasn't exactly relevant to this conversation.
Your problem (and you are very clever and knowledgeable) is that there is a slight undertone of arrogance and know-it-all'ness that underlines most of your posts. This grates, and gets under people's skin. Normally, I can dust it off. Today, I am grouchy.
Perhaps it's worth thinking about how you come across.
I'm off.
Another poster who tries to psychoanalyse me.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
Quite so. I will, and I do. And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative.
The Remainian Conspiracy: if only we had a thriller writer on our site to sketch out a plot. It could be chock-a-block full of evil lawyers, treacherous accountants and scheming five-a-day advisers. I'd prefer not to be blood-eagled, if that's alright though.
The Remainian Conspiracy: if only we had a thriller writer on our site to sketch out a plot. It could be chock-a-block full of evil lawyers, treacherous accountants and scheming five-a-day advisers. I'd prefer not to be blood-eagled, if that's alright though.
Loathe as I am to agree with IDS, it probably isn't the place of the judiciary to tell Parliament how to run its affairs. MPs will get the chance to amend the bill and vote on it, that is enough.
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"bottled it" ?
LOL. Nope. I made a rational and sane decision based on the information at hand: that the case, to my mind at least, was not made. Clearly you differed. Then again, I'm not sure you ever fully considered alternative views. In fact, your use of the word 'bottled' is evidence towards that.
I feel like hurling a few insults towards you, but instead I'll just LOL again.
And my vote (which I was honest about throughout) wasn't exactly relevant to this conversation.
Your problem (and you are very clever and knowledgeable) is that there is a slight undertone of arrogance and know-it-all'ness that underlines most of your posts. This grates, and gets under people's skin. Normally, I can dust it off. Today, I am grouchy.
Perhaps it's worth thinking about how you come across.
I'm off.
Another poster who tries to psychoanalyse me.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
Quite so. I will, and I do. And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative.
Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later.
"And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative."
Considering they said different things, perhaps not ...
"Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later. "
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
My point was the Google has also been given reassurances.
Why does it have to be in bloody London? The last thing London needs is more young, highly skilled professional workers, who can't buy a house, whereas the rest of the country is crying out for them.
Probably because Google thinks those people who choose to live in London are better employees than those people choosing to live in Sunderland.
No, since people would move across the country to work for them. I suspect it is more to do with London being a trendier place to be.
Well I'm glad they want to invest in the UK, even if it is London !
Me too. Although if it's just a make-it-attractive-to-prospective-empolyees location, I can't see why anyone would want to relocate to London over a hypothetical alternative of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow, Birmingham, Bristol or any one of a number of other pleasant, livable exciting British cities in which normal middle class people could afford to settle down. I can see why people like London, but really, if you're young and not in the ranks of the super-rich, it's almost no longer a realistic option.
Now a proper conspiracist would be citing this as evidence that the government wants to lose the case to trigger an election where Labour might well disintegrate.
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"b
Y
I'm off.
Another poster who tries to psychoanalyse me.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
Quite so. I will, and I do. And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative.
Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later.
"And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative."
Considering they said different things, perhaps not ...
"Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later. "
I'll have a good evening, don't worry.
There was no need to respond to that gracious post with sarcasm.
But you must have the last word, mustn't you?
Given I work in the industry you've always wanted to work in, you'd think you'd conduct yourself with more courtesy towards me. I've always respected your abilities, and had toyed with the idea of seeing what I could do to arrange introductions in the infrastructure/construction industry, because you are clearly very talented.
But, because of your behaviour on here, I am disinclined to do so now.
@Cookie London is glamorous and makes an effort to be welcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). Sheffield is unglamorous and apparently unwelcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). And if you're trying to attract bright young things to work for you, it helps if you're based in what is perceived to be one of the world's most important cultural centres with beautiful people rather than a wasteland populated by orcs.
@Cookie London is glamorous and makes an effort to be welcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). Sheffield is unglamorous and apparently unwelcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). And if you're trying to attract bright young things to work for you, it helps if you're based in what is perceived to be one of the world's most important cultural centres with beautiful people rather than a wasteland populated by orcs.
London also has pre-existing infrastructure for companies like Google and Apple. That's probably the main decision to stay in London instead of shifting resources to Europe or some other part of the UK.
Google is not the only US investment since Brexit. The UK, and more specifically North Wales, has been chosen to be the global repair hub to provide maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade services for the F35 avionic and aircraft components. Upto 2 billion investment in high skill jobs and in an area including Airbus and other associated industry.
We really need to get on with serving A50 and take a positiive approach to our future. The events of the last week have been very much in our favour and we must take advantage of them
@Cookie London is glamorous and makes an effort to be welcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). Sheffield is unglamorous and apparently unwelcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). And if you're trying to attract bright young things to work for you, it helps if you're based in what is perceived to be one of the world's most important cultural centres with beautiful people rather than a wasteland populated by orcs.
London also has pre-existing infrastructure for companies like Google and Apple. That's probably the main decision to stay in London instead of shifting resources to Europe or some other part of the UK.
"This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences," - what are the secondary purposes of the note? Who are the internal audiences? Audiences is plural.
"It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department" - commissioned by whom? A government minister? Is no. 10 a government department?
" and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall." - does not suggest the view is wrong.
"This work was conducted without access to No. 10" - so there was access from the Cabinet Office and other government departments?
"or input from any other government departments," - input is different from access. Did No. 10 input into the memo?
"May attacks leaked Brexit memo Theresa May has launched an excoriating attack on one of the world's biggest consultancy firms over a leaked memo, accusing it of "touting for business"...... The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman said that the author of the memo is not working for the Government and dismissed the document as "unsolicited". She said: "It's an unsolicited document that has had nothing to do with Government at all. It has not been commissioned by the Government. It hasn't been distributed widely across Government. It does seem as though this is a firm touting for business aided by the media. "I struggle to understand how one individual who has never met the Prime Minister or any members of her team can then decide that the timetable is false or different." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/theresa-may-brexit-leaked-memo-john-mcdonnell-live/
@Cookie London is glamorous and makes an effort to be welcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). Sheffield is unglamorous and apparently unwelcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). And if you're trying to attract bright young things to work for you, it helps if you're based in what is perceived to be one of the world's most important cultural centres with beautiful people rather than a wasteland populated by orcs.
@Cookie London is glamorous and makes an effort to be welcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). Sheffield is unglamorous and apparently unwelcoming to outsiders (viz the referendum vote). And if you're trying to attract bright young things to work for you, it helps if you're based in what is perceived to be one of the world's most important cultural centres with beautiful people rather than a wasteland populated by orcs.
London also has pre-existing infrastructure for companies like Google and Apple. That's probably the main decision to stay in London instead of shifting resources to Europe or some other part of the UK.
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"b
Y
I'm off.
Another poster who tries to psychoanalyse me.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
Quite so. I will, and I do. And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative.
Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later.
"And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative."
Considering they said different things, perhaps not ...
"Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later. "
I'll have a good evening, don't worry.
There was no need to respond to that gracious post with sarcasm.
But you must have the last word, mustn't you?
Given I work in the industry you've always wanted to work in, you'd think you'd conduct yourself with more courtesy towards me. I've always respected your abilities, and had toyed with the idea of seeing what I could do to arrange introductions in the infrastructure/construction industry, because you are clearly very talented.
But, because of your behaviour on here, I am disinclined to do so now.
Wow. Just wow. Please just think about what you wrote, and the way it sounds.
A hint: courtesy works both ways: you might like to think back to a PM you sent me a while back and the reasons for it.
As for getting a job: I daresay I'll muddle along without your largesse, just as I have throughout my life.
I forgot you speak for all Brexiteers. Many may disagree with your "no. 1 objective".
And you would think you're being realistic. I'm far from sure you are. But hey, reasonable people can reasonably differ on such things. I meant no slight.
I don't, but you felt you knew my mind. So I corrected you.
I recognise you bottled voting Leave, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
Like you said, reasonable people can differ.
"b
Y
I'm off.
Another poster who tries to psychoanalyse me.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
Quite so. I will, and I do. And if several people are saying it, that is sometimes informative.
Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later.
"A
T
Wow. Just wow. Please just think about what you wrote, and the way it sounds.
A hint: courtesy works both ways: you might like to think back to a PM you sent me a while back and the reasons for it.
As for getting a job: I daresay I'll muddle along without your largesse, just as I have throughout my life.
Goodbye everyone. May the bets be profitable!
That's ok. I think we understand where we both stand now. I won't be sending you any more PMs, I can assure you.
Typed in 'Bannon', just to see how PB has reacted to his appointment. Not surprised at all to see how his appointment went down here. I think Trump could appoint the grand duke wizard of the KKK to be his chief of staff, and the first thing some on this site would be thinking of is 'how much does this annoy the left/only the left will be upset by this'.
Also, I have to laugh at how calling Michelle Obama an 'ape' is considered only 'bitchy'. As if there isn't a racist history behind referring to Black people as apes/monkeys....
After Donald Trump’s election as president, Pamela Ramsey Taylor, director of the Clay County Development Corp., took to Facebook to comment on the upcoming shift from Obama to Melania Trump, reportedly writing: “It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels.”
Even if it was not intended to be racially derogatory (which I doubt) it's still an awful comment to describe any woman as an "ape".
Absolutely. The fact that Michelle Obama is classy, beautiful and dignified really does not come into it. In this country I think this would be prosecutable. A sick, sick individual.
I wouldn't want it to be prosecutable, because it's good for people like Pamela Taylor to show themselves in their true colours. Such a comment says far more about her than anyone else could.
From what I could pick up, I thought Michelle Obama had done some good work for women's rights and education. Ad hominem or bitchy comments should be beneath opponents. Regrettably we are getting a lot from the Democrats because that is what they do and from the Republicans because it is payback time.
Calling a black woman an ape goes well beyond bitchy.
It is utterly revolting. And quite genuinely shocking. (And I'm not easily shocked.)
Michelle Obama has been the epitome of a classy, dignified and beautiful First Lady. As far as I know she appears not to have put a foot wrong. But even if she weren't any of those things, one simply does not talk about people in such a way.
Also, I have to laugh at how calling Michelle Obama an 'ape' is considered only 'bitchy'. As if there isn't a racist history behind referring to Black people as apes/monkeys....
Typed in 'Bannon', just to see how PB has reacted to his appointment. Not surprised at all to see how his appointment went down here. I think Trump could appoint the grand duke wizard of the KKK to be his chief of staff, and the first thing some on this site would be thinking of is 'how much does this annoy the left/only the left will be upset by this'.
Also, I have to laugh at how calling Michelle Obama an 'ape' is considered only 'bitchy'. As if there isn't a racist history behind referring to Black people as apes/monkeys....
I'm interested in the first bit. Can you search a PB thread for a key word? How? That would be really useful.
Also, I have to laugh at how calling Michelle Obama an 'ape' is considered only 'bitchy'. As if there isn't a racist history behind referring to Black people as apes/monkeys....
Yes, that wasn't a majority view on here.
I know, I didn't say it was. I'm still shocked that one person seriously said that, though.
Comments
"It may be that a significant number of those in the south who say they are going to vote 'No' will end up staying at home," said Federico Benini, head of the Winpoll agency."
Wonder where I've heard this before.
The obvious suspects present themselves naturally. Deloitte are not on that list.
"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.
"We do value how open and connected it is and we can bring in talent from anywhere in the world and we value those attributes and we are optimistic that those will stay true over time."
"So we did [make the investment decision] taking into consideration [the referendum], but we are very optimistic"
Reading the runes, it suggests to me a tightening on low-skilled immigration, and possibly more flexibility on high-skilled immigration, subject to the democratic process.
And yes, they probably have been talking to HMG.
But such an immigration policy is probably exactly what most people in the UK want.
Has she confirmed whether she is standing again or not yet?
SPIN have settled Donald Trump at 306
Collect or deposit now at your leisure.
Rather annoyingly Betfair have not.
It looks like it's NO alright.
However, your quotes were still selective. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Why not also celebrate this fantastic news?
The new politique is changing lots of positions while the UK benefits. The Irish are also expressing remorse today over the lack of giving Cameron more and they are one of many in the EU who are coming to the realisation that a deal has to be done with the UK.
This time the 'favoured' option is BEHIND at the gun !
Looks like a NO to me too.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.127242752
I got the impression last night that the Deloite paper was a Whitehall one.
Someone from Deloite or the Times has been sloppy.
Invisible stuff with mass. Am I describing Dark Matter or Ninjas? Exactly.
Which is probably why I've been a bit more disengaged as of late.
I'll get my coat.
Or was it genuinely a Deloitte internal "How can we fleece the gov't" document run amuck ?
LOL. Nope. I made a rational and sane decision based on the information at hand: that the case, to my mind at least, was not made. Clearly you differed. Then again, I'm not sure you ever fully considered alternative views. In fact, your use of the word 'bottled' is evidence towards that.
I feel like hurling a few insults towards you, but instead I'll just LOL again.
And my vote (which I was honest about throughout) wasn't exactly relevant to this conversation.
Paul can block his appointment in the Senate foreign relations committee, so Bolton won't take that job, but the question is who will.
As Paul is the swing vote on the committee, Trump will have to find someone who will get the OK from him.
There you go again. Lumping me into a collective, and dismissing me accordingly, without even bothering to address my point. And yet you have the nerve to tell me what posts of mine are reasonable or not?
It's very simple: this is good news. Rather than make a balanced post including the positive parts of Google's announcement in your post, you selectively highlighted the reservations and negatives. As you have done for months, now, with your posts on here.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
A patriotic champion of British business like yourself could have at least introduced your argument with "This is great news, but".
But you didn't. Because everything must be framed to make Brexit look dicey, disorganised, reckless and ridiculous.
Anyway, I must be off for the night.
Just look at that polling go from huge yes leads to a solid "No" !
Good evening.
But of course it doesn't look good.
Tricky to keep a horse or two in the middle of London on ~ £60k household income, so not really for me.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/15/new-apple-mac-book-infinite-battery-life/
Perhaps it's worth thinking about how you come across.
I'm off.
It is probably the closest Google can find to Silicon Valley outside the US. Clustering is one of the more fascinating parts of modern economics.
Of course, we can also note the political inferences and implications from the announcements as well.
For them they don't know anything about the other parts of the country, London is the only place they know it exists.
Just like most of us don't know much about foreign cities except their largest one or their capital (example France=Paris for most).
Perhaps you should take your own advice, and consider how *you* come across as well.
Oh well. I'm off for a while as well. C u all. Play nicely.
"Piss off"
They have a sense of humour in that company.
There are a huge number of people who want Brexit to fail - in the sense of it being blocked/stopped/people scared into recanting etc.
AV is bad because of Clegg.
EU is bad because of Cameron.
It's now Renzi's turn.
My view is that from where we are now it would be worse for the country not to Brexit than to Brexit because remaining from here would be an unbridled national humiliation. But I wish that we weren't here. I lost, though, and am getting over it :-)
I agree there are more important things than arguing about it with you, though.
Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/798588948243238912
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/798589557633679360
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/798590085423841281
Hillary 48%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/britain-probably-leaving-eu-customs-union-says-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
http://www.aei.org/publication/this-man-is-washingtons-candidate/
Considering they said different things, perhaps not ...
"Anyway, have a good evening, and see you later. "
I'll have a good evening, don't worry.
But you must have the last word, mustn't you?
Given I work in the industry you've always wanted to work in, you'd think you'd conduct yourself with more courtesy towards me. I've always respected your abilities, and had toyed with the idea of seeing what I could do to arrange introductions in the infrastructure/construction industry, because you are clearly very talented.
But, because of your behaviour on here, I am disinclined to do so now.
We really need to get on with serving A50 and take a positiive approach to our future. The events of the last week have been very much in our favour and we must take advantage of them
"This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences," - what are the secondary purposes of the note? Who are the internal audiences? Audiences is plural.
"It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department" - commissioned by whom? A government minister? Is no. 10 a government department?
" and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall." - does not suggest the view is wrong.
"This work was conducted without access to No. 10" - so there was access from the Cabinet Office and other government departments?
"or input from any other government departments," - input is different from access. Did No. 10 input into the memo?
"May attacks leaked Brexit memo
Theresa May has launched an excoriating attack on one of the world's biggest consultancy firms over a leaked memo, accusing it of "touting for business"......
The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman said that the author of the memo is not working for the Government and dismissed the document as "unsolicited".
She said: "It's an unsolicited document that has had nothing to do with Government at all. It has not been commissioned by the Government. It hasn't been distributed widely across Government. It does seem as though this is a firm touting for business aided by the media.
"I struggle to understand how one individual who has never met the Prime Minister or any members of her team can then decide that the timetable is false or different."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/theresa-may-brexit-leaked-memo-john-mcdonnell-live/
A hint: courtesy works both ways: you might like to think back to a PM you sent me a while back and the reasons for it.
As for getting a job: I daresay I'll muddle along without your largesse, just as I have throughout my life.
Goodbye everyone. May the bets be profitable!
https://twitter.com/msnuk/status/798594053701062657
Thank you for making it easy for me.
Also, I have to laugh at how calling Michelle Obama an 'ape' is considered only 'bitchy'. As if there isn't a racist history behind referring to Black people as apes/monkeys....
Michelle Obama has been the epitome of a classy, dignified and beautiful First Lady. As far as I know she appears not to have put a foot wrong. But even if she weren't any of those things, one simply does not talk about people in such a way.