On topic, the 'Brexit wrong' figure seems to have drifted back down to where it was in the period of maximum lack of clarity about the government's approach. That it is back to that point before negotiations have even started must be a concern for the Brexiteers.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
aye
Thanks Gents - I've just asked for the reservation, will confirm as soon as I've heard back.
Research has shown that between half and two-thirds of lone attackers signal their intent to relatives or friends before executing a violent act. Most have links to broader networks or active Islamist groups, some non-violent. Associates of the Nice and Berlin attackers have been detained.
So more a conspiracy of silence among associates than active support.
Still good reason to take them in for questioning, at the very least.
The point which many people miss here is that the question isn't simply whether EU citizens can stay here (and Brits stay in EU27 countries), it's the terms under which they can stay. Putting it at its crudest, who pays, and how much? If Theresa May gave a unilateral and unconditional guarantee, what would prevent our EU friends saying 'Thank you very much, we don't think we should continue any contributions to their healthcare costs, but we will be asking for you to continue contributing to the costs of Brits in our countries.'
That is why a unliateral guarantee is a non-starter. As with all negotiations, the devil in in the detail.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, May's Lancaster House speech is merely a negotiating position, and the aim of the EU will be to maintain the integrity of the single market, ideally with the UK inside it, whether Theresa May likes it or not.
The only purpose of the attempted side-deal on this was to frame the negotiations in such as way as to concede that freedom of movement would end.
I think single market integrity with sans free movement is a deal that would satisfy both sides, but the EU will essentially be rewarding the UK for leaving. That can't happen.
Migration between UK and EU27 is asymmetric so the actual details are crucial. If May had made a unilateral offer Juncker and Barnier would have retorted: "She's doing it out of weakness. She needs all our low-paid citizens to pick the veg, serve the coffee, care for the elderly etc etc etc. But we don't need UK citizens for anything in particular, especially the economically inactive. So Auf Wiedersehen, Pet."
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
Wasn't he on Pompey's side? Would've thought he'd be more comfortable sitting alongside the Queen of Bithynia.
It was when he was accused of desecrating the celebration of the Good Goodess, at Caesar's house.
My recollection is that he was on Pompey's side, yes. Of course it was because she was suspected of colluding in his activities that Caesar felt obliged to divorce his wife - Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, and all that.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
Some of the EU countries will want a deal - for example many Eastern European migrants currently resident in the UK may well not qualify under the income rules. (Many, of course, will do).
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of being able to do separate deals with different EU countries. They will stick together on this 100%.
Sorry, explanation below is rather long. Summary: the UK Government is deliberately making it difficult for EU citizens to get UK permanent residence under existing rules so they can have more "negotiating capital" for better EU market access.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pie Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of being able to do separate deals with different EU countries. They will stick together on this 100%.
I was thinking post Brexit, if there is no deal. But I think there will be a deal.
Sorry, explanation below is rather long. Summary: the UK Government is deliberately making it difficult for EU citizens to get UK permanent residence under existing rules so they can have more "negotiating capital" for better EU market access.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
I don't think they are. They've just got more important things to focus on right now.
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
Is it her fault that no one challenged her? Not even Osbourne?
I am not attributing blame, just pointing out that she is an unelected leader with a supine parliament. Labour are not an opposition at the moment and do not look like they will be an opposition for some years yet.
Now, sure, it wasn't a big thing for most people who opposed EU membership, and people who were Leavers usually voted Labour or Conservative without much thought about the issue, but that doesn't mean the EU was particularly popular in the UK.
Sorry, explanation below is rather long. Summary: the UK Government is deliberately making it difficult for EU citizens to get UK permanent residence under existing rules so they can have more "negotiating capital" for better EU market access.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
Obtaining permanent residence status has been getting steadily more difficult for a long time - well before Brexit.
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
No, the Tory MPs *did* vote for her - more comprehensively than in any previous open election. Their role in the process as MPs was over when Leadsom dropped out, and May would have been elected under any of the previous 'MP only' versions of the Party's rules, given how the votes actually went.
On topic, isn't the polling question interesting, but the wrong focus? I voted Remain, and still think a Remain vote would have been better (largely on economic grounds), but I accept the outcome of the vote. If anything, I wish Article 50 had been triggered earlier. It's like ripping off a plaster - the best way is just to get on with it. I think other polling has shown up to two-thirds of voters just want to get on and through it - though I stand to be corrected....
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of being able to do separate deals with different EU countries. They will stick together on this 100%.
I was thinking post Brexit, if there is no deal. But I think there will be a deal.
The pertinent question is whether May will accept the deal. The only variable that really matters is polticial support for Brexit in the UK, and as we can see from the lead article, there has been no consolidation of public opinion around May's approach.
Now, sure, it wasn't a big thing for most people who opposed EU membership, and people who were Leavers usually voted Labour or Conservative without much thought about the issue, but that doesn't mean the EU was particularly popular in the UK.
That is simply not true of France.
Le Pen hasn't promised a Frexit referendum, has she? She was waivering somewhere around a Euro-ref last time I checked.
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
No, the Tory MPs *did* vote for her - more comprehensively than in any previous open election. Their role in the process as MPs was over when Leadsom dropped out, and May would have been elected under any of the previous 'MP only' versions of the Party's rules, given how the votes actually went.
Sadiq Khan giving a good live interview just now on Sky.
While I did not see him on Sky yesterday despite watching it all day I do accept that circumstances may have curtailed his access to some of the media and therefore concede I may have misjudged him yesterday
You're full of bigotry and prejudice. I read your comments on Khan yesterday and rarely have I read anything less appropriate.
Khan was in London all day yesterday, mainly in City Hall. The Press camp out there. He said nothing because he didn't want to say what he didn't believe in. In the end, he was forced to by his own side.
Having read your reply to Roger's "You're full of bigotry and prejudice. I read your comments on Khan yesterday and rarely have I read anything less appropriate", I agree with Roger.
For goodness sake, Big_G admitted he was wrong. If people are going to pile on every time that happens, then you discourage others questioning their own opinions. Is that really what you want ?
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
aye
Thanks Gents - I've just asked for the reservation, will confirm as soon as I've heard back.
Wednesday won't be good for me - I'll be working in the Midlands
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
No, the Tory MPs *did* vote for her - more comprehensively than in any previous open election. Their role in the process as MPs was over when Leadsom dropped out, and May would have been elected under any of the previous 'MP only' versions of the Party's rules, given how the votes actually went.
Do you think May would have won in a membership vote? Comfortably?
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
No, the Tory MPs *did* vote for her - more comprehensively than in any previous open election. Their role in the process as MPs was over when Leadsom dropped out, and May would have been elected under any of the previous 'MP only' versions of the Party's rules, given how the votes actually went.
I prefer PM's to win general elections
PM's are governments formed of the largest party, consisting of MPs who have been elected in their own constituencies.
The mandate of ANY Prime Minister comes from Parliament.
Le Pen hasn't promised a Frexit referendum, has she? She was waivering somewhere around a Euro-ref last time I checked.
Her priority is to get France out of the Eurozone. She has said that, if she can't achieve that by negotiation, she'll call a referendum on EU membership and recommend that France leaves the EU altogether.
Some of the EU countries will want a deal - for example many Eastern European migrants currently resident in the UK may well not qualify under the income rules. (Many, of course, will do).
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
You are talking here about Freedom to Move rights to travel to countries to live and to work after Brexit, which is different from allowing people qualified for residence at the time of Brexit to continue to reside in their respective countries. Theresa May has in principle rejected the first, although I suspect there's a haggle to be had, while accepting the second.
On partial FoM, Nabavi is right. The EU will not accept a deal that discriminates between, say, Romanians and Germans.
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
aye
Thanks Gents - I've just asked for the reservation, will confirm as soon as I've heard back.
Wednesday won't be good for me - I'll be working in the Midlands
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pie Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
Not Content ....
JackW is historically banned from PB events as Mike Smithson considers that, this "Old Contemptible of PB", is a bad influence on some of the younger dainty wallflowers of PB ....least of all OGH wishes that all attendees get home, especially by rail, in a timely fashion with all their clothes and decorum intact .....
This is the view Europeans have of the British. It's pretty broad brush stuff but why should it be otherwise? It's the same way most on here look at comments from nonentities in the EU though few of them are as ignorant or vulgar.
htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY
I wrote in December that:
"Leavers saw themselves like Captain Onedin, majestically standing on the prow surveying the horizons of the open seas, independent, adventurous and enterprising. Meanwhile, the outside world saw posters implying that Turkey was joining the EU and Nigel Farage smugly standing in front of the Breaking Point poster, exactly echoing Nazi propaganda about Jewish immigrants".
Leavers have made zero effort since then to improve the outside world's image of them.
The Turkey point very neatly encapsulates why Remain lost (and there is no doubt the ref was lost by Remain, not won by Leave). Turkey was halfway through accession talks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union These are now on hold for reasons not foreseeable last June. The only answer I have seen to this point is that the talks were being conducted in an ironic kind of way, and that the accession talks would in no circumstances lead to accession. This answer is, I am afraid, just too difficult for the little people to understand, and until they can be deprived of the vote as many Remainers seem to wish, it appears that honesty about this would have been the better policy.
And there is nothing racist, or little Englander, about not wanting to get any closer to Turkey than we have to, just as there is nothing wrong with rejoicing at the fact that brexit distances us from a country led by that pig Orban - a figure who has the rare distinction that he can be compared to Hitler not out of an excess of high spirits and Godwinism but because he is actually like Hitler. I am sure he makes the trains run on time, though.
What really lost the Turkey point for REMAIN was a video of Cameron saying he was Turkey's biggest cheerleader for joining the E.U. Also Cameron's year 3,000 just backfired because it sounded like he was doing another one of his PR soundbites.
Although I don't like the fact the defense minister lied about us not being able to veto Turkey joining the E.U.
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
No, the Tory MPs *did* vote for her - more comprehensively than in any previous open election. Their role in the process as MPs was over when Leadsom dropped out, and May would have been elected under any of the previous 'MP only' versions of the Party's rules, given how the votes actually went.
I prefer PM's to win general elections
That's your right but we have a parliamentary, not a presidential system - and if the PM resigns then someone has to take over.
If there's one thing that the Budget proved, it's that the principle that a party - not a PM - is elected on its manifesto and can be held to account on it.
Sorry, explanation below is rather long. Summary: the UK Government is deliberately making it difficult for EU citizens to get UK permanent residence under existing rules so they can have more "negotiating capital" for better EU market access.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
They have made the process more difficult since the BREXIT vote?
Not seen it because I have been working (ahem) but my wife, no fan normally, tells me that Mrs May was extremely good this morning and that she is being commended by all sides of the House.
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pie Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
Not Content ....
JackW is historically banned from PB events as Mike Smithson considers that, this "Old Contemptible of PB", is a bad influence on some of the younger dainty wallflowers of PB ....least of all OGH wishes that all attendees get home, especially by rail, in a timely fashion with all their clothes and decorum intact .....
Surely on the day that we trigger Article 50 anything is possible, Mr W?
Not seen it because I have been working (ahem) but my wife, no fan normally, tells me that Mrs May was extremely good this morning and that she is being commended by all sides of the House.
Yes, she was. James Cleverly, who served with PC Keith Palmer in the Royal Artillery, paid an incredibly moving tribute.
We could try it now. After all, we are a one party state with an appointed, unelected head of government.
May for El Presidente?
Unelected? The people of Maidenhead may beg to differ
They voted for Theresa May MP not Theresa May PM. No one voted for Theresa May PM, not even Tory MPs. Her challenger dropped out and no vote was held.
No, the Tory MPs *did* vote for her - more comprehensively than in any previous open election. Their role in the process as MPs was over when Leadsom dropped out, and May would have been elected under any of the previous 'MP only' versions of the Party's rules, given how the votes actually went.
I prefer PM's to win general elections
PM's are governments formed of the largest party, consisting of MPs who have been elected in their own constituencies.
The mandate of ANY Prime Minister comes from Parliament.
Not quite correct.
The mandate comes from the voters, who elect MP's who when in a majority in the House of Commons give the Prime Minister confidence to accept from the Monarch an offer to form an administration.
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pie Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
All those in favour say AYE.....
Not Content ....
JackW is historically banned from PB events as Mike Smithson considers that, this "Old Contemptible of PB", is a bad influence on some of the younger dainty wallflowers of PB ....least of all OGH wishes that all attendees get home, especially by rail, in a timely fashion with all their clothes and decorum intact .....
Surely on the day that we trigger Article 50 anything is possible, Mr W?
The will of the people is one thing but the mighty will of OGH is quite another !!
Last night a PB meet next Wednesday evening in central London was mooted. Any more interested? We have about 8 so far...
Wine bar is looking likely....unless SeanT can somehow sign more than 4 of us into the Groucho....
Is the criterion for attendance having voted LEAVE last year ? If so, I could attend.
I suspect my views on the future of "Global Britain" might not chime with the majority.
I'll back you up, Stodge.
Much appreciated, my friend. We still have the small matter of no venue as apparently every wine bar in London is hosting an A50 party (if we are to believe Dixie who knows all the senior Conservatives and has been invited to all the parties).
How about I book a spot for 10 pax at Truckles in Pied Bull Yard, just off Bury Place, for 6pm Weds 29th.
Sorry, explanation below is rather long. Summary: the UK Government is deliberately making it difficult for EU citizens to get UK permanent residence under existing rules so they can have more "negotiating capital" for better EU market access.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move - and it was flatly rejected.
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
They have made the process more difficult since the BREXIT vote?
In the sense that they've made it necessary without the commensurate resources to manage it, yes.
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of being able to do separate deals with different EU countries. They will stick together on this 100%.
I was thinking post Brexit, if there is no deal. But I think there will be a deal.
The pertinent question is whether May will accept the deal. The only variable that really matters is polticial support for Brexit in the UK, and as we can see from the lead article, there has been no consolidation of public opinion around May's approach.
Given May has ruled out another referendum and we have a Tory government with a big poll lead and a large majority of Tory voters put immigration control as their top priority for the Brexit talks polls on public support for Brexit are an almost irrelevant variable. What would make a difference is Labour getting a poll lead on a platform of remaining in the EEA or a second EU referendum and there is no sign of that now
They have made the process more difficult since the BREXIT vote?
The process is the same and made equally difficult for EU and non-EU citizens. EU citizens have not needed to go through the process because until Brexit they get residence through the EU. That's the specific issue we 're talking about and, which the Government could easily fix if it were sincere about looking after EU residents in the UK and UK residents in other EU countries. The Government could, as the leaving party, also help make residence easier to negotiate for UK residents in other EU countries by offering to provide support to governments in those countries and helplines for individuals etc.
Sorry, explanation below is rather long. Summary: the UK Government is deliberately making it difficult for EU citizens to get UK permanent residence under existing rules so they can have more "negotiating capital" for better EU market access.
The reason why she didn't is an understandable lack of trust. At the time all the noise from the EU was extremely hostile (led by Juncker, Guy V, and Barnier). That's why she made an offer rather than a unilateral move
It may be that now Barnier is being more reasonable she should reiterate her proposal in the Article 50 invocation letter - and I suspect (based on yesterday's comments) it would be accepted.
I am now convinced Mrs May was insincere in her early offer of negotiating residence rights. In fact, residence rights are in the gift of member states, with the one EU requirement that EU citizens are automatically given residence rights in member states after five years of living in the country. Most EU citizens haven't applied for permanent residence under UK rules because they have it anyway through membership of the EU. With the latter disappearing on Brexit, it should be straightforward for EU citizens living in the UK for more than five years to apply for UK residence and citizenship so their residence can continue uninterrrupted. Except it isn't. The application process is bureaucratic to the point of wilful obstruction. That's something the UK government could easily sort out now. It's telling they haven't.
I don't expect the EU to want to change the five year residence rule as that would give Brexited UK citizens rights in member states that other EU citizens wouldn't have. There is a negotiation to be had with the EU on accrued welfare rights, right to work, dependents and so on. But there is nothing to negotiate on the basic right to reside. So what was the UK government hoping to achieve by haggling on this (Amber Rudd actually called EU residents in the UK "negotiating capital")? The right of their citizens to continue to live and work in the UK after Brexit is a key demand of some EU member states. The UK government, I think, saw that as a card in an otherwise weak hand that could be traded for certain market access rights. It wouldn't be a deal that established EU citizen rights for UK citizen rights. The interest of UK expats will be traded away, as those of our fishermen always have been, and our farmers will be, so the UK government can get a relatively better deal for its priority groups.
They have made the process more difficult since the BREXIT vote?
In the sense that they've made it necessary without the commensurate resources to manage it, yes.
Not seen it because I have been working (ahem) but my wife, no fan normally, tells me that Mrs May was extremely good this morning and that she is being commended by all sides of the House.
What's the point of this session in the House Of Commons? I thought they were going to carry on with business as usual? It's perfectly right that the PM, LOTO and a few select others make a speech, honour and give thanks for the murdered Police Officer and the other victims, the security and emergency services, give an update of what they know, and then carry on. This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
Research has shown that between half and two-thirds of lone attackers signal their intent to relatives or friends before executing a violent act. Most have links to broader networks or active Islamist groups, some non-violent. Associates of the Nice and Berlin attackers have been detained.
So more a conspiracy of silence among associates than active support.
Still good reason to take them in for questioning, at the very least.
Yes. An important longer-term challenge is to try to lower the threshold at which people report acquaintances or even friends who seem to be thinking about doing this sort of thing. Most of us hesitate before reporting friends about anything - it goes against lots of good instincts and we don't want some sort of Stasi system where we all report anything from a dodgy joke to drunken hyperbole. And if we're in a community that rightly or wrongly feels beleaguered, the threshold is higher. But if a friend says "You know, I'm really thinking about doing something to take out some of those politician bastards" or something like that, people need to feel ready to warn someone.
How that's best done is not obvious to me - dialling 999 doesn't feel the most promising thing to urge. Maybe some sort of phoneline run by a respected non-governmental group with representatives from different communities who could discuss anything that people find worrying and persuade callers to take them to the police where appropriate?
What's the point of this session in the House Of Commons? I thought they were going to carry on with business as usual? It's perfectly right that the PM, LOTO and a few select others make a speech, honour and give thanks for the murdered Police Officer and the other victims, the security and emergency services, give an update of what they know, and then carry on. This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
Not seen it because I have been working (ahem) but my wife, no fan normally, tells me that Mrs May was extremely good this morning and that she is being commended by all sides of the House.
Just reading a report of Mrs. May's speech this morning I should like to raise a point of order in the happy spirit of PB Pedantry.
Mrs. May is reported in the Telegraph as saying, "We meet here in the oldest of all parliaments ...". I am not sure that is correct. The parliaments of the Isle of Man and Iceland are surely older than the Parliament at Westminster.
What's the point of this session in the House Of Commons? I thought they were going to carry on with business as usual? It's perfectly right that the PM, LOTO and a few select others make a speech, honour and give thanks for the murdered Police Officer and the other victims, the security and emergency services, give an update of what they know, and then carry on. This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
This is "business as usual" as times like this.
The House of Commons as one sending clear messages to those bereaved, families of those otherwise directly concerned and the wider nation and to those who wish us harm. If not now when?
This afternoon parliament will carry on with regular matters, as is correct.
What's the point of this session in the House Of Commons? I thought they were going to carry on with business as usual? It's perfectly right that the PM, LOTO and a few select others make a speech, honour and give thanks for the murdered Police Officer and the other victims, the security and emergency services, give an update of what they know, and then carry on. This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
This is "business as usual" as times like this.
The House of Commons as one sending clear messages to those bereaved, families of those otherwise directly concerned and the wider nation. If not now when?
This afternoon parliament will carry on with regular matters, as is correct.
A few powerful speeches from relevant people are certainly required . "Does the Prime Minister agree with me that terrorism is a bad thing?" repeated over and over , not so much.
Mr. Llama, indeed, the Isle of Man's is the oldest, I think.
Wikipedia offers these suggestions:
Various parliaments are claimed to be the oldest in the world, under varying definitions:
Cortes of León: Kingdom of León (Spain) in 1188. Alfonso IX of León created a parliament (Cortes) including representatives of the nobles, the church and the populace. According to the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme, it is the oldest documentary manifestation of the European parliamentary system. The Sicilian Parliament, whose first assembly was convened in 1097. The Icelandic Althing, year 930, but only including the main chiefs. The Faroese Løgting. The Manx Tynwald.
What's the point of this session in the House Of Commons? I thought they were going to carry on with business as usual? It's perfectly right that the PM, LOTO and a few select others make a speech, honour and give thanks for the murdered Police Officer and the other victims, the security and emergency services, give an update of what they know, and then carry on. This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
This is "business as usual" as times like this.
The House of Commons as one sending clear messages to those bereaved, families of those otherwise directly concerned and the wider nation. If not now when?
This afternoon parliament will carry on with regular matters, as is correct.
A few powerful speeches from relevant people is certainly required . "Does the Prime Minister agree with me that terrorism is a bad thing?" repeated over and over , not so much.
The House of Commons isn't just about the PM and a few "relevant people". A few hours is the very least that those who have died, been injured and affected deserve.
It is not too much to ask of most of us to accept, but clearly not you
Not seen it because I have been working (ahem) but my wife, no fan normally, tells me that Mrs May was extremely good this morning and that she is being commended by all sides of the House.
Just reading a report of Mrs. May's speech this morning I should like to raise a point of order in the happy spirit of PB Pedantry.
Mrs. May is reported in the Telegraph as saying, "We meet here in the oldest of all parliaments ...". I am not sure that is correct. The parliaments of the Isle of Man and Iceland are surely older than the Parliament at Westminster.
Point of order, Mr Llama!
She said "we meet here in the oldest of all parliaments" clearly referring to the physical place. I don't know, but I am sure that Pugin's Westminster is not the oldest of physical parliaments.
I think Putin's regime is looking increasingly unstable in light of the failure of the election of Trump to bring about the kind of thawing in relations they were expecting. The money is running out...
What's the point of this session in the House Of Commons? I thought they were going to carry on with business as usual? It's perfectly right that the PM, LOTO and a few select others make a speech, honour and give thanks for the murdered Police Officer and the other victims, the security and emergency services, give an update of what they know, and then carry on. This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
This is "business as usual" as times like this.
The House of Commons as one sending clear messages to those bereaved, families of those otherwise directly concerned and the wider nation. If not now when?
This afternoon parliament will carry on with regular matters, as is correct.
A few powerful speeches from relevant people is certainly required . "Does the Prime Minister agree with me that terrorism is a bad thing?" repeated over and over , not so much.
The House of Commons isn't just about the PM and a few "relevant people". A few hours is the very least that those who have died, been injured and affected deserve.
It is not too much to ask of most of us to accept, but clearly not you
I'm not going to get into an argument with you. We just have different views on what we want the practicalities of Parliament to be.
Research has shown that between half and two-thirds of lone attackers signal their intent to relatives or friends before executing a violent act. Most have links to broader networks or active Islamist groups, some non-violent. Associates of the Nice and Berlin attackers have been detained.
So more a conspiracy of silence among associates than active support.
Still good reason to take them in for questioning, at the very least.
Yes. An important longer-term challenge is to try to lower the threshold at which people report acquaintances or even friends who seem to be thinking about doing this sort of thing. Most of us hesitate before reporting friends about anything - it goes against lots of good instincts and we don't want some sort of Stasi system where we all report anything from a dodgy joke to drunken hyperbole. And if we're in a community that rightly or wrongly feels beleaguered, the threshold is higher. But if a friend says "You know, I'm really thinking about doing something to take out some of those politician bastards" or something like that, people need to feel ready to warn someone.
How that's best done is not obvious to me - dialling 999 doesn't feel the most promising thing to urge. Maybe some sort of phoneline run by a respected non-governmental group with representatives from different communities who could discuss anything that people find worrying and persuade callers to take them to the police where appropriate?
This is difficult. Some time ago I was involved in a discussion on the age of consent and the views expressed by one person involved in that discussion were a bit alarming. I can't remember what was said now and it was an opinion on the rules not some sort of confession. I had no reason to believe those views had any practical effect and didn't believe they did as I believed the person to be law abiding, but I did discuss the conversation with others so it obviously bothered me. Sometime later that person was convicted of viewing child pornography. I still don't think I (or anyone else in that conversation) had any grounds to report it, but....
Memo to Beeb, is there any reason not to caption or alt text your photo of PC Keith Palmer? For all anyone can tell from your front page he might be the perpetrator.
Mr. Llama, indeed, the Isle of Man's is the oldest, I think.
Wikipedia offers these suggestions:
Various parliaments are claimed to be the oldest in the world, under varying definitions:
Cortes of León: Kingdom of León (Spain) in 1188. Alfonso IX of León created a parliament (Cortes) including representatives of the nobles, the church and the populace. According to the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme, it is the oldest documentary manifestation of the European parliamentary system. The Sicilian Parliament, whose first assembly was convened in 1097. The Icelandic Althing, year 930, but only including the main chiefs. The Faroese Løgting. The Manx Tynwald.
How many of those have remained sovereign and maintained continuous existence?
Iceland's, for example, was essentially a county council during the lengthy Norwegian rule, and was also abolished for 45 years during the 19th century.
While there are certainly gaps in England's parliament before 1689, the institution itself has remained intact from a point well back into the Middle Ages. During the era of Charles I's personal rule, for example, he was well aware that he could only operate without a parliament because he had arranged affairs so he could run without the need for additional taxes or legislation. In effect, parliament might have been in eclipse but it still remained a real part of the political structure of the country.
I think Putin's regime is looking increasingly unstable in light of the failure of the election of Trump to bring about the kind of thawing in relations they were expecting. The money is running out...
The money seems to be the biggie. I read this morning that the Russian government's income has collapsed by about 60% over the past few years and, further, its grip on the supply of gas to Europe is being weakened by LNG coming from the USA.
Russia has embarked on a programme of rearmament, which may now run out of steam due to a shortage of funds or it may as per the Soviet days try to keep its military going at the expense of the civil economy. Either way stability does not look certain.
Not seen it because I have been working (ahem) but my wife, no fan normally, tells me that Mrs May was extremely good this morning and that she is being commended by all sides of the House.
Just reading a report of Mrs. May's speech this morning I should like to raise a point of order in the happy spirit of PB Pedantry.
Mrs. May is reported in the Telegraph as saying, "We meet here in the oldest of all parliaments ...". I am not sure that is correct. The parliaments of the Isle of Man and Iceland are surely older than the Parliament at Westminster.
Point of order, Mr Llama!
She said "we meet here in the oldest of all parliaments" clearly referring to the physical place. I don't know, but I am sure that Pugin's Westminster is not the oldest of physical parliaments.
I confess I didn't read Mrs. May's speech as referring to the physical structure, parliament is surely more than the building it meets in. The Commons was bombed out during the war and for some years met in St. Stephen's Hall, so definitely not the oldest Parliament on that basis. That said, Westminster Hall dates from the 11th century and I am not sure that there is an older building than that still in use as part of a parliament anywhere in the world.
Research has shown that between half and two-thirds of lone attackers signal their intent to relatives or friends before executing a violent act. Most have links to broader networks or active Islamist groups, some non-violent. Associates of the Nice and Berlin attackers have been detained.
So more a conspiracy of silence among associates than active support.
Still good reason to take them in for questioning, at the very least.
Yes. An important longer-term challenge is to try to lower the threshold at which people report acquaintances or even friends who seem to be thinking about doing this sort of thing. Most of us hesitate before reporting friends about anything - it goes against lots of good instincts and we don't want some sort of Stasi system where we all report anything from a dodgy joke to drunken hyperbole. And if we're in a community that rightly or wrongly feels beleaguered, the threshold is higher. But if a friend says "You know, I'm really thinking about doing something to take out some of those politician bastards" or something like that, people need to feel ready to warn someone.
How that's best done is not obvious to me - dialling 999 doesn't feel the most promising thing to urge. Maybe some sort of phoneline run by a respected non-governmental group with representatives from different communities who could discuss anything that people find worrying and persuade callers to take them to the police where appropriate?
This is worse than when you wanted to grass that locksmith for trying to do a cashie,
An acquaintance of mine who is an ex-copper just posted something on fb contrasting May's fine (and deserved) words about the work of the police force with the way she filleted their pay, conditions and pensions when Home Secretary.
nothing massively new but I suspect that it is part of a campaign to hold the CPS feet to the fire . Having seen the deluge of glossy literature, personally addressed to family in SW England in 2015 I wondered how it was paid for........
For those who thought this morning that 90 minutes was too long for the House of Commons to question the Prime Minister on the death of a police officer, three other innocent people and the justified killing of a terrorist who attempted to attack our democracy, they may now be reassured that prior to such questions the House had discussed international trade and other issues.
Within the last ten minutes the Commons has been treated to issues related to Waltham Forest Parish Council and other less important matters.
An acquaintance of mine who is an ex-copper just posted something on fb contrasting May's fine (and deserved) words about the work of the police force with the way she filleted their pay, conditions and pensions when Home Secretary.
Just an observation....
The Home Secretary represents the taxpayers as well as the Police.
Comments
Still good reason to take them in for questioning, at the very least.
Migration between UK and EU27 is asymmetric so the actual details are crucial. If May had made a unilateral offer Juncker and Barnier would have retorted: "She's doing it out of weakness. She needs all our low-paid citizens to pick the veg, serve the coffee, care for the elderly etc etc etc. But we don't need UK citizens for anything in particular, especially the economically inactive. So Auf Wiedersehen, Pet."
My recollection is that he was on Pompey's side, yes. Of course it was because she was suspected of colluding in his activities that Caesar felt obliged to divorce his wife - Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, and all that.
The advantage of agreeing a deal at an EU level is you don't have to negotiate 27 different deals. (In practice, I suspect we would be better off negotiating a dozen separate deals, and not negotiating automatic rights - or at least on different terms - with other countries.) But sometimes life is too short.
The Mother of Parliaments is in sorry shape.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39356365
Now, sure, it wasn't a big thing for most people who opposed EU membership, and people who were Leavers usually voted Labour or Conservative without much thought about the issue, but that doesn't mean the EU was particularly popular in the UK.
That is simply not true of France.
Comfortably?
The mandate of ANY Prime Minister comes from Parliament.
On partial FoM, Nabavi is right. The EU will not accept a deal that discriminates between, say, Romanians and Germans.
JackW is historically banned from PB events as Mike Smithson considers that, this "Old Contemptible of PB", is a bad influence on some of the younger dainty wallflowers of PB ....least of all OGH wishes that all attendees get home, especially by rail, in a timely fashion with all their clothes and decorum intact .....
Although I don't like the fact the defense minister lied about us not being able to veto Turkey joining the E.U.
If there's one thing that the Budget proved, it's that the principle that a party - not a PM - is elected on its manifesto and can be held to account on it.
The mandate comes from the voters, who elect MP's who when in a majority in the House of Commons give the Prime Minister confidence to accept from the Monarch an offer to form an administration.
Remember the oxford comma.
http://bit.ly/2mXL5GW
This is just a waste of time, back slapping each other and saying what a great place "This House" is, thanking the PM and commending her, praising everybody in the HOC for carrying on with their jobs, making statements of the bleeding obvious before they all go over the same thing again.
How that's best done is not obvious to me - dialling 999 doesn't feel the most promising thing to urge. Maybe some sort of phoneline run by a respected non-governmental group with representatives from different communities who could discuss anything that people find worrying and persuade callers to take them to the police where appropriate?
Mrs. May is reported in the Telegraph as saying, "We meet here in the oldest of all parliaments ...". I am not sure that is correct. The parliaments of the Isle of Man and Iceland are surely older than the Parliament at Westminster.
The House of Commons as one sending clear messages to those bereaved, families of those otherwise directly concerned and the wider nation and to those who wish us harm. If not now when?
This afternoon parliament will carry on with regular matters, as is correct.
Various parliaments are claimed to be the oldest in the world, under varying definitions:
Cortes of León: Kingdom of León (Spain) in 1188. Alfonso IX of León created a parliament (Cortes) including representatives of the nobles, the church and the populace. According to the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme, it is the oldest documentary manifestation of the European parliamentary system.
The Sicilian Parliament, whose first assembly was convened in 1097.
The Icelandic Althing, year 930, but only including the main chiefs.
The Faroese Løgting.
The Manx Tynwald.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4342008/Russian-MP-fled-Moscow-shot-dead-Kiev.html
Mr. Glenn, Tynwald is my pick.
It is not too much to ask of most of us to accept, but clearly not you
She said "we meet here in the oldest of all parliaments" clearly referring to the physical place. I don't know, but I am sure that Pugin's Westminster is not the oldest of physical parliaments.
https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/comments/610pnq/the_mark_yourself_as_safe_option_on_fb_is/
https://twitter.com/ScotParl/status/844884194899759104
Iceland's, for example, was essentially a county council during the lengthy Norwegian rule, and was also abolished for 45 years during the 19th century.
While there are certainly gaps in England's parliament before 1689, the institution itself has remained intact from a point well back into the Middle Ages. During the era of Charles I's personal rule, for example, he was well aware that he could only operate without a parliament because he had arranged affairs so he could run without the need for additional taxes or legislation. In effect, parliament might have been in eclipse but it still remained a real part of the political structure of the country.
Separately I agree it is unwieldy and needs to be substantially simplified - but there's enough misinformation on Brexit without adding to it.
Russia has embarked on a programme of rearmament, which may now run out of steam due to a shortage of funds or it may as per the Soviet days try to keep its military going at the expense of the civil economy. Either way stability does not look certain.
Just an observation....
Of course this is wrong - in any context !
nothing massively new but I suspect that it is part of a campaign to hold the CPS feet to the fire . Having seen the deluge of glossy literature, personally addressed to family in SW England in 2015 I wondered how it was paid for........
Within the last ten minutes the Commons has been treated to issues related to Waltham Forest Parish Council and other less important matters.