A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17. Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
Interesting, thanks. I suspect that’s the way we’ll go. Our problem is that BT says they WILL soon supply Infinity to part of our community, but not to the majority.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
The argument, as I see it, for the hereditary system, is that you accept the occasional imbecile as a price worth paying for having absolutely clear cut succession rules and therefore avoiding civil wars. It's not a very fashionable principle these days where meritocracy, at least nominally, holds sway. (I admit to being cynical about meritocracy, which seems like a post-fact justification: I am top dog - therefore it must have been on merit).
Charles is far from an imbecile. I think he will do OK. The big problem is Queen Elizabeth hanging on for too long. She should retire and the principle of retirement, having been established, means Charles reigns for just a few years until he retires in turn, leaving the way clear for William
We are not a continental monarchy where abdication seems to becoming the norm. The Queen gave her Coronation Oath to serve the nation all the days of her life. It is a responsibility she will not break and neither will her son.
LIke all institutions the Monarchy needs to move with the times and recognise what is best for the country. If QE2 hangs on then then at some point a regent will need to deputise. That's not doing the reputation of the Monarchy or the country any favours.
The Prince of Wales as Regent is a perfectly acceptable solution should the Queen become incapacitated. Such arrangements were in place for George VI/Princess Elizabeth, Queen Victoria/Prince Albert Edward and William IV/ Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent.
Yes, his testimony yesterday was very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO
Of course, it's worth adding that what he says works both ways. If our EU friends want to banish UK airlines to the outer reaches of the airport accessible only by bus, then they could hardly complain if we give preference to UK airlines at our airports. We should always remember that what we propose is reciprocal access: it's not just 'will the UK have good access to the single market?', it's equally 'will the EU27 have good access to the UK market?'
The danger, as Sir Ivan pointed out very clearly, is that we all fall into a deal which damages both sides, because of EU politics and the huge difficulty they will have in coming to an agreement amongst themselves.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
What last point?
The point about Scotch.
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.
This is the same Ivan "screwed up the renegotiation before the referendum" Rogers, no?
It's the same Ivan Rogers that was actually OK, when you think about it on PB a couple of weeks back when he gave testimony that Leave supporters liked.
Given UKIP's competence with numbers I'd take any reports of optimism from them with a huge pinch of salt.
At this time of day it probably means they've seen a number of their (very enthusiastic) voter base (prob older voters) come and tell them they are very excited and motivated, and so are all their mates.
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to them
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
Some of those statistics are quite shocking. 11% of Ohioans are prescribed opiates, one in eight American men has a felony conviction, the actual unemployment rate is four times the official rate and half of those missing are on some sort of disability benefit etc etc.
I find it staggering that Italy has generated more jobs since 1999 (percentage-wise!) than the US.
More Americans die from opiate addiction (majority prescription) than from either guns or vehicles. America is a very sick society, with social and geographic mobility declining, drugged up on prescription, obese and staring at screens all day. Or at least part of it is, while the other part works multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Many parts of Britain are similar. I see a bit too much of it in my clinics. As individual patients, I sympathise and treat, but as a culture it worries me.
but isnt that the culture you have voted for ?
It's not as if this happened overnight, it's the cumulation of pretty much the same policies for the last 20 years or so, irrespective of which party was in government.
No, it isn't what I voted for. Over the 35 years since I reached voting age, I have had a government that I voted for for 10 years, the rest one I opposed.
Unfortunately, in a democracy there is no right to vote for a winner.
Which 10 years, incidentally? 1997-2007?
We would however have a better democracy if fewer votes were wasted, and if there were fewer places where voting is effectively pointless.
Nowhere is voting pointless. Every party starts on zero. If seats remain safe for one party, it's because that's what the voters there want (or, at least, because they can't agree on a better alternative).
That's disingenuous. There are many constituencies where the outcome is a foregone conclusion under FPTP.
Like Tatton, Blaenau Gwent, or all of Scotland? When the will to change is there, the result changes. The reason why the result doesn't change is because there is no such will.
Those are exceptions that prove the rule. I'm not saying that conditions cannot arise whereby safe seats can change hands, but you know that there are hundreds of seats where a vote for the non incumbent is pretty futile. You'll also know that many of those seats are held on percentages lower than 50.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
What last point?
The point about Scotch.
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
Even if they are, it'd still be a 90%+ (off the top of my head) likelihood of being statistically significant.
The whole thing has a 90% chance of being complete nonsense because its based on an optional survey given at major ports of entry. People here on visitors visas and planning to take the piss are hardly likely to complete a survey form!
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to them
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
What last point?
The point about Scotch.
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.
Hmm - "like domestic products".
I think "comparable" is a reasonable synonym for "like".
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to them
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.
It is. Other electoral systems are available.
And almost every one more representative of voters opinions than airer than our "illiterate X"
Yes, his testimony yesterday was very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO
Of course, it's worth adding that what he says works both ways. If our EU friends want to banish UK airlines to the outer reaches of the airport accessible only by bus, then they could hardly complain if we give preference to UK airlines at our airports. We should always remember that what we propose is reciprocal access: it's not just 'will the UK have good access to the single market?', it's equally 'will the EU27 have good access to the UK market?'
The danger, as Sir Ivan pointed out very clearly, is that we all fall into a deal which damages both sides, because of EU politics and the huge difficulty they will have in coming to an agreement amongst themselves.
The problem on reciprocity is that we are one country - albeit an important one. So, Lufthansa has issues with flights in and out of the UK (ie, London); BA has issues with flights in and out of Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam etc etc.
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to them
Whereas they probably think giving absolute power to a party that wins 30+% of the votes is bonkers.
Yes, but since you can't guarantee that there will ever be a majority (well, except with the Bhutan system), what options do you have?
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?
One imagines that the Irish and Japanese would be pretty unhappy about that as well.
Any idea of declaration times....I am thinking it could be late for Copeland (getting ballot boxes in across a scattered constituency after a storm) so 4-5am declaration, while Stoke between 2&3? thats before any recount and jiggery pokery of that sort.
He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
I thought the EU weren't going to negotiate any trade deal until after we left? But maybe that was just posturing.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.
We can always go the ECJ and say - "it may not mention us by name, but this is clearly meant to benefit French cognac makers at the expense of Scottish whisky." And the ECJ is quite active at slapping down countries that it thinks act in this way.
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Hardly practical.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
As the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess. She has already accepted a lesser title; the precedent is in place.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.
There is no acceptance of a lesser title as formally Camilla is Princess of Wales and thus no precedent. She uses the title of Duchess of Cornwall as a courtesy to the memory of Diana. No such courtesy is required when she becomes Queen Consort as it is a title never held by Diana.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.
We can always go the ECJ and say - "it may not mention us by name, but this is clearly meant to benefit French cognac makers at the expense of Scottish whisky." And the ECJ is quite active at slapping down countries that it thinks act in this way.
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.
If the ECJ is able to make that determination, that it is in effect a tariff, why doesn't the WTO?
Any idea of declaration times....I am thinking it could be late for Copeland (getting ballot boxes in across a scattered constituency after a storm) so 4-5am declaration, while Stoke between 2&3? thats before any recount and jiggery pokery of that sort.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
No landlines here at all, so its mobile or nothing, and LTE internet or nothing. Mind you the first time I came here 20 years ago there was no mobiles, no television and one landline on the whole island - mind you people came out and talked to each other then, rather than sitting in their houses watching TV!
He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
I thought the EU weren't going to negotiate any trade deal until after we left? But maybe that was just posturing.
That is definitely just posturing! And, indeed the terms of Article 50 explicitly refer to the negotiation including the post exit relationship.
From what I understand, the biggest area of disagreement is around a transitional arrangement. The UK government wants none of the costs of EU membership and all the benefits for five years, while the EU wants us to bear all of the costs, with as few benefits as possible.
We will, eventually (and painfully), come to a deal that's halfway between Canada and Switzerland.
He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
I am curious about what the Government's negotiating strategy actually is for Brexit. They claim they can get a comprehensive trade agreement sorted (minus some dotted i's and crossed t's) within two years. It's possible - as long as they give in into every demand the other side makes, bar a bit of cosmetic haggling. Time is not on their side. They also presumably expect a transition arrangement because they don't seem to be moving forward on alternative arrangements. If we are going to have customs controls, certification of civil aviation etc, they need to be recruiting now, developing systems and so on. Looking at this overview of the UK and EU negotiating teams it's clear the focus of the UK team is more on shoring up factional support for Brexit than getting a good deal. They may not actually be that interested in negotiating.
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
I thought the EU weren't going to negotiate any trade deal until after we left? But maybe that was just posturing.
That is definitely just posturing! And, indeed the terms of Article 50 explicitly refer to the negotiation including the post exit relationship.
From what I understand, the biggest area of disagreement is around a transitional arrangement. The UK government wants none of the costs of EU membership and all the benefits for five years, while the EU wants us to bear all of the costs, with as few benefits as possible.
We will, eventually (and painfully), come to a deal that's halfway between Canada and Switzerland.
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
Differential tariffs based on countries of origin are prohibited under WTO rules. However, a 25% tax on spirits made from barley with more than a 40% alcohol content would be perfectly legal. (And is, in fact, how the Japanese discourage people from drinking non local beverages.)
Yep, so we wouldn't complain to the ECJ, we'd complain to the WTO.
But it wouldn't be in contravention of WTO treaty obligations to tax barley based spirits differently to grape based ones. So how would we complain?
Aren't countries free to do that inside the single market? We seem to be able to change the rate of duty on different kinds of alcohol independently of other countries inside the single market.
We can always go the ECJ and say - "it may not mention us by name, but this is clearly meant to benefit French cognac makers at the expense of Scottish whisky." And the ECJ is quite active at slapping down countries that it thinks act in this way.
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.
If the ECJ is able to make that determination, that it is in effect a tariff, why doesn't the WTO?
Because countries aren't prepared to cede that much sovereignty to unelected Swiss bureaucrats!
The problem on reciprocity is that we are one country - albeit an important one. So, Lufthansa has issues with flights in and out of the UK (ie, London); BA has issues with flights in and out of Paris, Munich, Frankfurt, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam etc etc.
That's true, but it's still the case that disruption to trade hurts them as well as us, and in some sectors more than us. So it's basically up to them - how much do they want to shoot at their own feet? Sir Ivan's testimony was quite chilling on that point:
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.
@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU: +165,000 EU citizens +164,000 non-EU citizens
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.
Three reasons:
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.) 2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education. 3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.
Not at the current prices...did I notice you saying you were positive UKIP would get at least 25 percent in Stoke?
@AndyJS prediction of 25-30% for UKIP in Stoke was put quite confidently, it's a small band imo and his standing will increase yet further with the site if it holds up. Going for POTY 2 years in a row ?
Cheers. I'm struggling to see them polling that highly but also loath to ignore anything Andy thinks. If much of that has come from Labour it really will be close at least 3 ways, possibly 4.
ironically the better the Libs do, the more chance UKIP an win.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
No landlines here at all, so its mobile or nothing, and LTE internet or nothing. Mind you the first time I came here 20 years ago there was no mobiles, no television and one landline on the whole island - mind you people came out and talked to each other then, rather than sitting in their houses watching TV!
That's true, but it's still the case that disruption to trade hurts them as well as us, and in some sectors more than us. So it's basically up to them - how much do they want to shoot at their own feet? Sir Ivan's testimony was quite chilling on that point:
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU: +165,000 EU citizens +164,000 non-EU citizens
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.
Net migration will turn negative in the next five years.
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Why would net migration turn negative when we are and will remain an economically successful first world developed nation.
Three reasons:
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.) 2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education. 3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.
Interesting conversation with Polish electrician, who was changing our electric meter yesterday. He wants to stay here, but his wife whose optometrist qualification apparently (why?) can’t be used here wants to go back to Poland after Brexit. He’s worried about his qualifications here being unacceptable there then.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Hardly practical.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
As the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess. She has already accepted a lesser title; the precedent is in place.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.
There is no acceptance of a lesser title as formally Camilla is Princess of Wales and thus no precedent. She uses the title of Duchess of Cornwall as a courtesy to the memory of Diana. No such courtesy is required when she becomes Queen Consort as it is a title never held by Diana.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
Princess Consort might be an option, although King and Queen is just much more natural and less contrived.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.
practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided.
Talking of dishonesty... No ECJ influence on any matters covered by the TFEU and associated treaties other than to do with trade, no ECJ influence on immigration, labour relations, social policy, data retention, foreign policy, security, environmental law, criminal law, consumer protection, public services. So not at all pretty much were we are now.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
No landlines here at all, so its mobile or nothing, and LTE internet or nothing. Mind you the first time I came here 20 years ago there was no mobiles, no television and one landline on the whole island - mind you people came out and talked to each other then, rather than sitting in their houses watching TV!
...also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
I think the question of the UK political fallout from a messy and damaging Brexit is extremely hard to gauge, especially since Labour are effectively now tied to it. The one 100% certainty is that voters won't blame themselves.
Reference Stoke Central: the Lib Dem agent has said in writing this morning: "So we clear the office, bundle the good morning leaflets and prepare for a full-on count where no party really knows what will happen" Is that the reality or what?
That's true, but it's still the case that disruption to trade hurts them as well as us, and in some sectors more than us. So it's basically up to them - how much do they want to shoot at their own feet? Sir Ivan's testimony was quite chilling on that point:
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.
Are these Bluetooth 'phones then? Or do you mean physicaly tethered?
Edit to say: at night my phone sits on a speaker that acts as a charging dock so if I want to listen to something I can.
Not at the current prices...did I notice you saying you were positive UKIP would get at least 25 percent in Stoke?
@AndyJS prediction of 25-30% for UKIP in Stoke was put quite confidently, it's a small band imo and his standing will increase yet further with the site if it holds up. Going for POTY 2 years in a row ?
Cheers. I'm struggling to see them polling that highly but also loath to ignore anything Andy thinks. If much of that has come from Labour it really will be close at least 3 ways, possibly 4.
ironically the better the Libs do, the more chance UKIP an win.
Absolutely. I think the Lib Dem price is ridiculously high. Although watching Anywhere But Westminster made me wonder where they or the Tories were going to get votes from!!
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.) 2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education. 3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.
1. I see little evidence or reason to suggest either that 1/3 will go home, or that replacement rates for new migrants won't be high either. 2. Non-EU migration rules have been tightened for years, I simply don't see them realistically getting significantly tighter. 3. What evidence do we have for that? There's been lots of positive news in recent months for major multinationals either saying they're staying in London or expanding/moving into London.
In the early 1980s the UK was still recovering from being the "sick man of Europe" with over 3 million unemployed. It was also before the fall of the iron curtain started massive migration from Eastern Europe and at a time that there was much less migration from the third world. We're in a completely different era now and the iron curtain is not coming back.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.
Are these Bluetooth 'phones then? Or do you mean physicaly tethered?
Physically tethered. Attached. Through the headphone jack!
practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided.
Talking of dishonesty... No ECJ influence on any matters covered by the TFEU and associated treaties other than to do with trade, no ECJ influence on immigration, labour relations, social policy, data retention, foreign policy, security, environmental law, criminal law, consumer protection, public services. So not at all pretty much were we are now.
Not sure how expressing an opinion can be described as "dishonest". Of course, things like environmental protection, consumer standards, data protection etc can well have a trade element to them. In fact, most things can. It will all depend on the trade deal we do and what areas it stipulates are covered by the ECJ's jurisdiction. I happen to think that the deal we end up with will be pretty all encompassing, so I see a big ongoing role for the ECJ.
A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17. Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
Interesting, thanks. I suspect that’s the way we’ll go. Our problem is that BT says they WILL soon supply Infinity to part of our community, but not to the majority.
I understand there is a limit on how many Infinity users BT can connect to each local cabinet.
I was told a maximum of 50% in our village would be able to sign up to infinity because of the practical limit. However, we have a private communications company, GigaClear, who have installed optical fibre to the village so you can sign up to superfast broadband at a price.
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.
The government's conundrum is that paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ are necessary conditions for people thinking, Brexit wasn't so bad, was it? I think this is the issue that is exercising them right now.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
The easiest solution is to maintain the status from down the ages - the wife of the King is the Queen.
But the husband of the Queen is not the King. Perhaps we could restrict the title queen to that of the monarch, rather than the monarch's female consort. What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
If 19th Century telephony technology is so important, why have a mobile at all? Stick with the landline. Guaranteed never to need charged
I lose headphones for a hobby. That's OK if they are fairly cheep, but how much are a usable pair of in ear Bluetooth 'phones? I'd also forget to charge them.
I listen to the radio on my phone in bed as I fall asleep, and as I'm drifting off, I take the earphone out and drop it on the floor. And it stays tethered to the phone so I can find it in the morning! I can also listen and charge my phone at the same time. Ain't modern technology great?
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.
Are these Bluetooth 'phones then? Or do you mean physicaly tethered?
Physically tethered. Attached. Through the headphone jack!
That explains why you can find them in the morning! Sorry, not thinking straight at the moment.
Yep - it was very dishonest of some on the Leave side to claim that the negotiations would be simple and we would essentially get what we want. That said, I also think that in the real world national governments inside the EU will have the final say on what kind of deal gets done. That's why I expect we'll end up with something that delivers blue passports and other symbolic signs of sovereignty, but which in practice leaves us pretty much where we are now - paying into the EU, accepting high rates of migration from EU member states and having the ECJ as the forum in which disputes and controversies affecting UK/EU trade are decided. To do otherwise would be very damaging, not only economically but also - potentially - politically: obviously, the government will try to blame any Brexit fiasco on the EU, but there is a risk that people might not believe them, especially if the opposition gets its act together.
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.
The government's conundrum is that paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ are necessary conditions for people thinking, Brexit wasn't so bad, was it? I think this is the issue that is exercising them right now.
So they are going to love the idea of a transition period, leave in 2019, election in 2020 with people thinking, Brexit wasn't so bad, was it? Con landslide. Material hits the rotating blades a year or two later, if they haven't go any other big deals in place.
for present and forecast winds in near real time. It looks a bit unexciting and the summary says "Winds will be less severe in Cumbria but snow is likely on hills there later." But perhaps fear of amber warnings is as effective as the actual weather in keeping folks at home.
and probably would have done anyway as they have been for years.
I have to say, that headline (I did not see any point reading the story) almost made me laugh out loud.
Apocryphally, I think Trump offers the UK another opportunity obscured by the shadow of the prospect of a bigger trade deal. I was in Granada this week for a strategy retreat for a major very high tech global NGO. Its annual get together involved thousands of participants from nearly 50 countries last year. It is very rapidly growing, so in a normal year, one would expect even larger numbers this year.
The organizers are very concerned that international participants will either not get visas for the get together in the US, or won't even bother signing up to the NGO at all because of the prevailing climate in the Trump Administration. So they are looking to relocate, lock stock and barrel to London.
The three biggest attractions to the are:
1. the UK is the next most advanced in this field after the US 2. ability to host a conference of this size and nature, particularly international transport links 3. language.
It strikes my that scientific research institutions that are bewailing the potential loss of European integration are missing - at least to date - the opportunity posed by what's going on in the US. We are the natural location for US researchers seeking another home.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
The easiest solution is to maintain the status from down the ages - the wife of the King is the Queen.
But the husband of the Queen is not the King. Perhaps we could restrict the title queen to that of the monarch, rather than the monarch's female consort. What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?
Comments
and as pointed out on twitter, that last point would actually be in violation of WTO rules
As in, more people will leave than come here.
Good for those who wish to get on the property ladder. Bad for those whose only savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Michael Rectenwald
A commentary on last night's viral Twitter attack on me. Goodbye to the Left, goodbye. https://t.co/OgpdRA9EAU
Of course, it's worth adding that what he says works both ways. If our EU friends want to banish UK airlines to the outer reaches of the airport accessible only by bus, then they could hardly complain if we give preference to UK airlines at our airports. We should always remember that what we propose is reciprocal access: it's not just 'will the UK have good access to the single market?', it's equally 'will the EU27 have good access to the UK market?'
The danger, as Sir Ivan pointed out very clearly, is that we all fall into a deal which damages both sides, because of EU politics and the huge difficulty they will have in coming to an agreement amongst themselves.
2. The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products.
At this time of day it probably means they've seen a number of their (very enthusiastic) voter base (prob older voters) come and tell them they are very excited and motivated, and so are all their mates.
I'm not saying that conditions cannot arise whereby safe seats can change hands, but you know that there are hundreds of seats where a vote for the non incumbent is pretty futile. You'll also know that many of those seats are held on percentages lower than 50.
Does anyone know how many Residence Cards are issued each year?
Stoke
Labour 4.48
UKIP 2.52
LD 67.88
Con 66.83
65%
Except the stakes are wildly out of sync, and I am 1% underwater!
Oh wait...
The logical interpretations are (1) that they have already realised they will just have to accept what the EU side will offer but aren't ready to admit it; or (2) they really don't care - a failed Brexit that can be blamed on the EU is an OK outcome for them; or (3) they are in complete denial and don't know what they are doing.
Of course, this is both the benefit and the curse of the EU. It does (largely) prevent British firms from being discriminated against by other countries. But it does so by preventing politicians (and voters) from being able to enact the taxes they wish.
This isn't just an EU issue. In Quebec, the provincial government passed a law requiring all GM foods to be labelled as such. Monsanto took this to an ISDS tribunal (that sat in secret in the US), which ruled that the law was a non-tariff barrier aimed at US seed makers, and the law was struck down.
Free trade agreements, especially those that deal with NTBs, are inherently denuding of sovereignty. We need to decide where on the scale we want to be.
From what I understand, the biggest area of disagreement is around a transitional arrangement. The UK government wants none of the costs of EU membership and all the benefits for five years, while the EU wants us to bear all of the costs, with as few benefits as possible.
We will, eventually (and painfully), come to a deal that's halfway between Canada and Switzerland.
"If you had an abrupt cliff edge with real world consequences, you’ve seen what Mark Carney has said about the financial stability risks to the Eurozone of an abrupt cliff edge. There are other consequences in other sectors which would make it an insane thing to do. All I was pointing out was that this is a very legalistic body that we are dealing with and they will say you have transformed yourselves overnight from having been a member of this body to a third country outside the body and in the absence of a new legal agreement everything falls away. We all know that that’s nuts in the real world, because why would you want to stop UK planes flying into European airports on day [one]. We know that this is insanity, but that doesn’t mean - we know that stopping carcasses and consignments and saying ‘your slaughterhouses are no longer approved’, we may know that that is a nonsense in the real world. Sadly, that does not stop it necessarily happening."
As I've said many times recently, I think the financial markets and business are heavily under-estimating both the risk of a chaotic Brexit and the consequences. If I was Theresa May, I'd be rehiring Sir Ivan PDQ - his grasp of the issues, the complexity, and the EU politics looks second to none.
I'm
£60
£60
£200
£600
Ish on the stoke book.
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.)
2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education.
3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.
Oh, and my phone manufacturer trusts me to carry a spare battery and change it as required.
"So we clear the office, bundle the good morning leaflets and prepare for a full-on count where no party really knows what will happen"
Is that the reality or what?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/weather-in-copeland-tories-in-stoke-labour-voices-fears-of-failure-byelections
Edit to say: at night my phone sits on a speaker that acts as a charging dock so if I want to listen to something I can.
2. Non-EU migration rules have been tightened for years, I simply don't see them realistically getting significantly tighter.
3. What evidence do we have for that? There's been lots of positive news in recent months for major multinationals either saying they're staying in London or expanding/moving into London.
In the early 1980s the UK was still recovering from being the "sick man of Europe" with over 3 million unemployed. It was also before the fall of the iron curtain started massive migration from Eastern Europe and at a time that there was much less migration from the third world. We're in a completely different era now and the iron curtain is not coming back.
Although I guess Labour have to treat such seats as marginals, since on UNS they need to overturn majorities in that range to get to 326.
If anyone backs Con-Lab-UKIP at 10/1, when the Tories are 20 to win it on Betfair they should be tarred and feathered!
https://twitter.com/CompletePol/status/834485628175794176
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/23/thousands-eea-doctors-may-leave-uk-after-brexit-survey-bma?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man? That explains why you can find them in the morning! Sorry, not thinking straight at the moment.
Thanks, I'm all over the place as I both back and lay as my trading position dictates
LEAVE 52%
REMAIN 48%
Looks familiar ....
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
for present and forecast winds in near real time. It looks a bit unexciting and the summary says "Winds will be less severe in Cumbria but snow is likely on hills there later." But perhaps fear of amber warnings is as effective as the actual weather in keeping folks at home.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1/2017/02/23/mercedes-f1-launch-new-w08-car-soon-unveiled-2017-season-live/
Apocryphally, I think Trump offers the UK another opportunity obscured by the shadow of the prospect of a bigger trade deal. I was in Granada this week for a strategy retreat for a major very high tech global NGO. Its annual get together involved thousands of participants from nearly 50 countries last year. It is very rapidly growing, so in a normal year, one would expect even larger numbers this year.
The organizers are very concerned that international participants will either not get visas for the get together in the US, or won't even bother signing up to the NGO at all because of the prevailing climate in the Trump Administration. So they are looking to relocate, lock stock and barrel to London.
The three biggest attractions to the are:
1. the UK is the next most advanced in this field after the US
2. ability to host a conference of this size and nature, particularly international transport links
3. language.
It strikes my that scientific research institutions that are bewailing the potential loss of European integration are missing - at least to date - the opportunity posed by what's going on in the US. We are the natural location for US researchers seeking another home.
https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/sen/arrivals
1.21 / 1.5 spread now.