Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Personal allowance, AV referendum, school dinners, etc.
Mr. Eagles, but the same question applies: would Cameron stand to be an MP again?
They both look a bit daft to have buggered off quite so quickly. I appreciate they didn't think it possible May would bugger up an election like she did, but that too points to complacency and want of judgement.
Dave could be PM from the Lords.
Posh boy squared....
The country loves a posh boy. That's why he took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs.
And got fewer votes than the Vicar's daughter....
Clearly you don't understand he electoral system. You see so desperate to speak up for failing Theresa.
I understand she won the election, it's you who seems to be struggling with the concept...
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Personal allowance, AV referendum, school dinners, etc.
They needed something that the Tories struggled with (at least a bit), to demonstrate a genuine partnership that required sacrifices on both sides.
Coming out with school dinners, a failed referendum and an allowance increase is hardly enough for the shit they had to shovel.
The market will decide that, won't it? Traders will go wherever is convenient and trusted.
No, central counterparty clearing exists because of EU regulation. Unless the Commission actively authorises it, this business cannot legally continue to operate in London.
There was plenty of anti-LD sniping from the Conservative backbenches during the Coalition years as well and the speed the Party turned on Cameron suggests the Coalition had destroyed much of the residual loyalty Cameron might have expected.
The problem for the LibDems, which I pointed out at the time, was that their entire electoral pitch was based on the idea that coalitions are a good thing (the 'new politics', 'parties working together', and all that guff). Indeed that remains, implicitly, the case, in that they continue to obsess about changing the voting system to make coalitions the only viable form of government.
All fair enough in its own way, and maybe they are and were right. However, when after many decades of campaigning for a coalition-style government they finally got one, they were thoroughly miserable about it and kept dissing it. They managed both to piss off those voters who are primarily motivated by anti-Tory prejudice without making a positive pitch in 2015 to those voters who actually quite liked the coalition. Who can be surprised that it didn't work out well for them?
As for anti-LD sniping from the Conservative backbenches during the Coalition years, that's completely different, because the Conservatives have never liked coalitions or advocated a voting system which would make them inevitable. So that sniping didn't trash their own political positioning.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Personal allowance, AV referendum, school dinners, etc.
The personal allowance should have been the trade-off for tuition fees. In giving up the latter in favour of the former, they trashed their reputation and risked allowing the Tories take credit for the tax cut (which is what ultimately happened).
The AV referendum was a defeat for the Lib Dems. By getting the referendum and then losing so badly, they set their cause backwards. Had the vote never been held, it would be easier to get a future referendum. In any case, they never really wanted AV anyway and given how high their active negative ratings were by 2015, it could have worked against them anyway.
Which leaves school dinners. And if that's all you've got to crow about after 5 years, it's pretty thin gruel.
The Lib Dems should have prioritised tuition fees in terms of spending commitments, should have prioritised Lords reform for their constitutional aspirations, and made a positive case for the coalition as an effective exhibition of the consensual politics they advocate anyway.
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
The claim you were making upthread was that the *current* situation gave rights to non-UK EU citizens with foreign spouses that UK citizens didn't have. This isn't right. It's about residence: UK citizens in this situation often move to another EU country then back, precisely because the current situation doesn't discriminate based on citizenship with the EU.
Obviously how this works after Brexit potentially gets quite complicated.
Since 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules have contained a financial requirement to be met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person who is: a British Citizen; or present and settled in the UK; or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection.
So a Frenchman working in the US marries a US citizen, he is neither a British Citizen, and neither present nor settled in the UK, and isnt a refugee. He can enter the UK by virtue of being an EEA citizen, his partner can enter because the Frenchman will be able to freely obtain a Family Permit (https://www.gov.uk/family-permit) which requires no minimum income.
A UK Citizen working in the US marries a US citizen, he is British, he therefore has to meet the financial requirement.
Subsitute "Dubai" or "Philippines" in place of "US" as appropriate for experiences closer to those of members of this forum!
Thanks, you and @CarlottaVance are right, apparently if you're EEA non-UK you have something called an "EEA family permit", which is sort-of a visa but not exactly a visa, and that doesn't work if you're a UK citizen, so the UK government can eat your rights.
Mr. Eagles, but the same question applies: would Cameron stand to be an MP again?
They both look a bit daft to have buggered off quite so quickly. I appreciate they didn't think it possible May would bugger up an election like she did, but that too points to complacency and want of judgement.
Dave could be PM from the Lords.
Posh boy squared....
The country loves a posh boy. That's why he took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs.
And got fewer votes than the Vicar's daughter....
Clearly you don't understand he electoral system. You see so desperate to speak up for failing Theresa.
I understand she won the election, it's you who seems to be struggling with the concept...
There appears to be an increase in non-Tories of all shades helpfully advising Tories that TM is failing and should go. Various factors no doubt motivate them but one can't help thinking that bolstering the current Tory government isn't one of them.
He's obviously right. The loony Leavers will hate it.
Of course he is. Interesting snippet about the entire cabinet wanting to do it straight after the Brexit vote - except May. Not sure why the cabinet did not just go ahead on that basis. Why did she have a veto?
The most troubling (and I suspect the correct) answer is that she genuinely thought that it strengthened our hand in negotiations, hence the whole charade over the last year of touting a pre-A50 deal as a way of anchoring negotiations. She's a liability to the country.
I suspect it was, as ever with May, much more about positive headlines in the right wing Brexit press.
We can only hope that May's infantile concept of how negotiation works has just been a show
Mr. Eagles, but the same question applies: would Cameron stand to be an MP again?
They both look a bit daft to have buggered off quite so quickly. I appreciate they didn't think it possible May would bugger up an election like she did, but that too points to complacency and want of judgement.
Dave could be PM from the Lords.
Posh boy squared....
The country loves a posh boy. That's why he took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs.
And got fewer votes than the Vicar's daughter....
Clearly you don't understand he electoral system. You see so desperate to speak up for failing Theresa.
I understand she won the election, it's you who seems to be struggling with the concept...
There appears to be an increase in non-Tories of all shades helpfully advising Tories that TM is failing and should go. Various factors no doubt motivate them but one can't help thinking that bolstering the current Tory government isn't one of them.
For years rival fans said that Arsenal should sack Wenger. Now they want him to stay...
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Personal allowance, AV referendum, school dinners, etc.
The personal allowance should have been the trade-off for tuition fees. In giving up the latter in favour of the former, they trashed their reputation and risked allowing the Tories take credit for the tax cut (which is what ultimately happened).
The AV referendum was a defeat for the Lib Dems. By getting the referendum and then losing so badly, they set their cause backwards. Had the vote never been held, it would be easier to get a future referendum. In any case, they never really wanted AV anyway and given how high their active negative ratings were by 2015, it could have worked against them anyway.
Which leaves school dinners. And if that's all you've got to crow about after 5 years, it's pretty thin gruel.
Don't forget the House of Lords reform that... oh wait... I think they can claim credit for pupil premium?
Otherwise I'd say their legacy was to save Cameron from the more extreme elements of his party having too much influence on policy.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
At the risk of mentioning PR...
They bottled even that - had they insisted on a meaningful form of PR, I would've voted for it; as it was... pfffft. They would probably still have lost, but at least they would've tried.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
The First Minister was a study in ennui yesterday, rolling her eyes, shaking her head, issuing that curious angry gulp she makes whenever confronted by a contrary point of view. When she could be bothered to engage, it was to rant at her critics and insist she was the greatest First Minister in all First Ministerdom. It was like watching Donald Trump’s Twitter stream come to life in slinky heels.
The SNP leader swept into office on a wave of blather about a ‘new politics’ and ‘one Scotland’. The Salmond smirk had been wiped away and replaced by consensus and unity and jolly japes on social media between Miss Sturgeon and her opponents. What a difference a couple of years makes. No longer Mother of the Nation, she is now at war with the country’s puppies. The First Minister has somehow gone from Indira Gandhi to Cruella de Vil.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Exactly, only I live where 99% of the workers make less than £1000pa... and for similar reasons Michael Gove will always have my gratitude
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Presumably you were OK with Australia having immigration controls?
Why would a Uk citizen with a Brazilian spouse want to live in the UK rather than Brazil?
If the watchpeopledie subreddit is any guide it's because every trip to the shops in Brazil ends in an exchange of small arms fire.
These regulations are mainly because of the massive abuse of the system by sham marriages originating from a handful of countries. Obviously to mention which countries would be racist in 2017.
Tuition fees and either the Foreign or Home Office should have been the red lines for the Lib Dems.
The former because it was a signed manifesto pledge, the latter for visibility and reputation.
The Tories (as we have recently discovered) would have had to have gone for it.
Foreign Office would just have been overruled by PM in most instances I think...
Home Office would be a better bet. A liberal policy on immigration, drugs etc. would have been politically damaging to the Tories and potentially quite helpful to the Lib Dems. Not sure Cameron would have agreed.
That they didn't see tuition fees as a red line still astounds me. I believe the claim that the Tory negotiators were extremely surprised that the Lib Dems conceded this - almost without being asked!
Overall I think they spread their influence wide but shallow, watering down some Tory proposals. Instead they should have relinquished control over a large number of areas and insisted they were in charge of a much smaller number.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Personal allowance, AV referendum, school dinners, etc.
The personal allowance should have been the trade-off for tuition fees. In giving up the latter in favour of the former, they trashed their reputation and risked allowing the Tories take credit for the tax cut (which is what ultimately happened).
The AV referendum was a defeat for the Lib Dems. By getting the referendum and then losing so badly, they set their cause backwards. Had the vote never been held, it would be easier to get a future referendum. In any case, they never really wanted AV anyway and given how high their active negative ratings were by 2015, it could have worked against them anyway.
Which leaves school dinners. And if that's all you've got to crow about after 5 years, it's pretty thin gruel.
Don't forget the House of Lords reform that... oh wait... I think they can claim credit for pupil premium?
Otherwise I'd say their legacy was to save Cameron from the more extreme elements of his party having too much influence on policy.
They can claim credit for the pupil premium, which is a good policy but a wonkish sort of thing to try to campaign on.
The Lords was a major error. Had they prioritised that rather than AV, they could have banked a fully- (or predominantly-)elected upper house, elected by PR. It might not have done them much practical good for the time being, given their collapse in support, but would have clipped the wings of the power of governments of other parties.
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
The market will decide that, won't it? Traders will go wherever is convenient and trusted.
Yes, trying to domicile clearing is a retrograde step by the EU. All it will do is make trading more difficult, the money is in London and New York for reasons other than scale, the EU will learn a very switft lesson if they try and push forwards with it anyway.
The endgame for them is not to move Euro denominated trading to Europe, but to try and force London's (and New York's) vast pools of capital onto the continent. There are no scenarios where London's capital markets are drawn to the continent, simply because investors don't trust the EU, ECJ or ECB to protect their money. Anyone who invests on the continent does so knowing that at some stage the EU will ask the ECJ/ECB to put the needs of the EU ahead of investors (see the Cyprus bank bail in).
U.K. Citizen wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - must pass income threshold.
EU citizen resident in U.K. wants to bring Brazilian spouse to U.K. - no income threshold - "right to family life."
The EU wants that to continue after BREXIT.
This is preposterous. EU citizens resident at either the referendum date or the A50 date (there are arguments for choosing either) should get exactly the same rights as UK citizens, no more, no less. EU citizens moving to the UK after the cut-off date should be treated like any other foreigner.
Or a Korean one, a Kiwi, a Uruguayan or a Macedonian. Your insinuation that people who want to bring there foreign spouses over have paid for them is exactly the thinking reinforced by the legislation. By making foreign spouses rely on their partners wealth (the foreigners income is not consider during an application) makes the trade in south-east Asian brides legitimate. Our foreign wives (and husbands) have all become "Thai brides" in the Home Office eyes.
For the record, my wife is not Thai and I don't have the money to buy women, hence our battles with the Home Office.
The market will decide that, won't it? Traders will go wherever is convenient and trusted.
No, central counterparty clearing exists because of EU regulation. Unless the Commission actively authorises it, this business cannot legally continue to operate in London.
Or traders could use a currency other than the Euro. Which would be ironic.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
We went through the same palaver as my wife is Indian. I think what really rankles over and above the intrusive bureaucracy is the sheer incompetence of the Home Offce officialdom involved. Mrs. DA qualified and worked as a dentist in Russia so we had to have certified translations of her credentials which is fair enough but the Home Office wanted the Russian originals (which were of zero utility to them) as well. Then they lost the fucking lot, originals, translations, everything so she had to fly back to SPB and get a set of replacement documents from her medical school. I was ready to mail them ricin by the end.
Or a Korean one, a Kiwi, a Uruguayan or a Macedonian. Your insinuation that people who want to bring there foreign spouses over have paid for them is exactly the thinking reinforced by the legislation. By making foreign spouses rely on their partners wealth (the foreigners income is not consider during an application) makes the trade in south-east Asian brides legitimate. Our foreign wives (and husbands) have all become "Thai brides" in the Home Office eyes.
For the record, my wife is not Thai and I don't have the money to buy women, hence our battles with the Home Office.
Was a joke. But the truth is the marriage route to citizenship has been abused on an industrial scale by some "communities" - their illegal acts have caused the current situation and you are I'm afraid a bystanding victim of their deceit which forced several government's hands.
Well he has a lot to be bitter about. Considering what he gave the Tories, they have repaid him with contempt.
He and the LibDems in general should have followed the advice I was giving during the coalition - to celebrate it as something better than the sum of the parts, not keep going around with long faces and complaining how horrid it was being shackled to those dreadful Tories they were keeping in power. The electorate saw how unhappy they were, and decided to put them out of their misery.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for Danny Alexander and Steve Webb, who were excellent ministers.
There were no tangible positive policy wins for the LibDems in the coaltion. Certainly nothing to match their very public policy defeats. The Tories seemed to enjoy, if not revel, in that.
If the LDs had held the line on tuition fees rather than prioritising the pointless AV referendum, the whole story might have been very different.
Personal allowance, AV referendum, school dinners, etc.
They needed something that the Tories struggled with (at least a bit), to demonstrate a genuine partnership that required sacrifices on both sides.
Coming out with school dinners, a failed referendum and an allowance increase is hardly enough for the shit they had to shovel.
They looked like they were taken to the cleaners.
Maybe if they hadn't spent half the time they were in coalition pretending to be in opposition...
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Presumably you were OK with Australia having immigration controls?
Yeh, I'm not Australian. They can do what they want. I'm talking about the UKs treatment of UK citizens. If I was Australian by the way, it would've be relatively simple to live with my wife, no income threshold involved.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Exactly, only I live where 99% of the workers make less than £1000pa... and for similar reasons Michael Gove will always have my gratitude
The 60% is a bit misleading because it includes people who are working part time as a result of already being married and choosing to be the main care giver for children, as well as over 65s doing bit jobs and under 18s doing summer jobs.
The income threshold is now the main thing cutting low skiled non-EU migration. This demographic mainly comes through family migration routes for economic purposes. I think it would be preferable to bring back the primary purpose rule myself. Getting rid of one without bringing back the other would would make migration much higher.
Osborne claimed Theresa May was a "dead woman walking" and it'd all "collapse" for her by Wednesday 14th June.
Tick. Tock.
His status as Tory plonker over the water is unlikely to be rivalled.
He's the Tory David Milliband.
In fairness to Miliband he's picked up a role on the world stage as President of the IRC, whilst Osborne is merely 'editing' a free local newspaper.
It's an interesting question as to why Osborne made that career move. There can be little doubt that he could be earning big money in directorships, as a political consultant and on the lecture circuit, if he so chose. But that route, like taking a peerage, is for those irrevocably retired from front-line politics.
The market will decide that, won't it? Traders will go wherever is convenient and trusted.
Yes, trying to domicile clearing is a retrograde step by the EU. All it will do is make trading more difficult, the money is in London and New York for reasons other than scale, the EU will learn a very switft lesson if they try and push forwards with it anyway.
The endgame for them is not to move Euro denominated trading to Europe, but to try and force London's (and New York's) vast pools of capital onto the continent. There are no scenarios where London's capital markets are drawn to the continent, simply because investors don't trust the EU, ECJ or ECB to protect their money. Anyone who invests on the continent does so knowing that at some stage the EU will ask the ECJ/ECB to put the needs of the EU ahead of investors (see the Cyprus bank bail in).
Well quite. Don't the EU remember the Eurodollar markets of the 1980s? London and NY will continue to buy and sell anything their customers want to buy and sell.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
My sympathies. I'm about to go through the same hoops (currently living in non-EU country with non-EU wife I met and married abroad) and hope we can use Brexit as a way to straighten the rules.
We all know the abuses came from two or three countries where everyone was having an arranged marriage with their cousin, outside the EU we may be able to restrict those countries without falling foul of 'human rights' rulings which currently give British citizens fewer rights than others in their own country.
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Presumably you were OK with Australia having immigration controls?
Yeh, I'm not Australian. They can do what they want. I'm talking about the UKs treatment of UK citizens. If I was Australian by the way, it would've be relatively simple to live with my wife, no income threshold involved.
I've never got to the bottom of how easy it is, or is it? to bring arranged spouses from Pakistan. Whether or not the UK person has enough finances, I don't know how they can prove that they have a knowledgeable relationship.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Exactly, only I live where 99% of the workers make less than £1000pa... and for similar reasons Michael Gove will always have my gratitude
The 60% is a bit misleading because it includes people who are working part time as a result of already being married and choosing to be the main care giver for children, as well as over 65s doing bit jobs and under 18s doing summer jobs.
The income threshold is now the main thing cutting low skiled non-EU migration. This demographic mainly comes through family migration routes for economic purposes. I think it would be preferable to bring back the primary purpose rule myself. Getting rid of one without bringing back the other would would make migration much higher.
I have played the primary purpose game before. The problem is it in essence comes down to proving a negative, a logical impossibility.
required foreign nationals married to British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not to obtain British residency.
Such a requirement still exists if you are attempting to gain a visa for say, an adopted child, because the same "communities" also abused that process by having relatives in their home country "gift" children to them so they could bring them to the UK and have them educated and medicated at the public expense.
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
No, but distracting the party because of an obsession with "taking the Lib Dems out for good" doesn't sound like the best way of making sure it has enough energy to defaeat the Labour Party.
I have a special interest, and therefore a special loathing for Theresa May, ex-Home Office Minister, as I am currently battling to keep my foreign spouse in the UK. We met and lived in Australia (neither of us are Aussies though), work dried up and we wished to live in the UK. To be told that I had to pass an income threshold (in an area where 60% of workers earn less than it at £18600), my wife told pass a language test, for us to pay roughly £5k total for the application and for my wife to pay a £1000 NHS surcharge on top was demoralising. Almost no other country is so punitive to its own citizens.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
Presumably you were OK with Australia having immigration controls?
Yeh, I'm not Australian. They can do what they want. I'm talking about the UKs treatment of UK citizens. If I was Australian by the way, it would've be relatively simple to live with my wife, no income threshold involved.
I've never got to the bottom of how easy it is, or is it? to bring arranged spouses from Pakistan. Whether or not the UK person has enough finances, I don't know how they can prove that they have a knowledgeable relationship.
There is a loophole:
You must be one of the following:
married or civil partners living together in a relationship for 2 years engaged to be married or to become civil partners
"With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."
No, but distracting the party because of an obsession with "taking the Lib Dems out for good" doesn't sound like the best way of making sure it has enough energy to defaeat the Labour Party.
Surely the 2017 election has proven that uniting the opposition is not a good idea. In 2015, crushing the Lib Dems offered a one-off electoral dividend, but in the long run the Tories are much better off with three parties in contention in England.
Looking at EU events, it's obviously a play to the Brexit vote at home. May has concluded the best place to ambush the EU is out of the closed doors negotiation rooms, and indeed they seem a little unprepared. She is setting out the first offer which she sells at home as generous, thoughtful and open. EU have to play for more and risk looking awkward and unreasonable in the British voters eyes. In addition, our first move is portrayed as generous and open, the EUs first move will be to ask for more and set out a divorce demand. Tactically pretty sound manouvere.
Looking at EU events, it's obviously a play to the Brexit vote at home. May has concluded the best place to ambush the EU is out of the closed doors negotiation rooms, and indeed they seem a little unprepared. She is setting out the first offer which she sells at home as generous, thoughtful and open. EU have to play for more and risk looking awkward and unreasonable in the British voters eyes. In addition, our first move is portrayed as generous and open, the EUs first move will be to ask for more and set out a divorce demand. Tactically pretty sound manouvere.
It would be, except for one eenzie teenzie problem. 27 foreign governments are fully aware of her incompetence, the lack of respect to from even her own parliamentary party and the ever lowering regard from the UK electorate.
@davidtorrance: Struck me at today's #FMQs that Sturgeon finds herself fire-fighting on 6 different fronts: #Brexit, #indyref2, domestic record 1/3
@davidtorrance: From the left (Corbyn), the right (Davidson) and, unusually, internal criticism. One or two of those might be manageable, not all six 2/3
@davidtorrance: Hereafter incidents like tail docking vote will highlight weakness/contradictions that have always been there, but now much more visibly 3/3
Indeed...
@IrvineWelsh: 'Nicky Sturgeon Puppy surgeon' has a 'Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher' ring to it. Own goals don't come any bigger or unnecessary.
Farm payments delayed again this year.
Is that the fault of Leadsom or the EU?
Nicola Sturgeon only, been going on for nearly 3 years. 5,000 out of 18,000 still haven't received any payments yet. This is the third extension requested to avoid fines of £60 million tax payers money.
Comments
"I’ve never gone through a voting process where the losers demand of the winners that they explain themselves."
https://twitter.com/brexit/status/878146335786110976
Every election works like that. Is this a poorly reported interview and things are being taken out of context?
It's in the Independent after all so its legitimate to also check if the interviewer is a moron.
Coming out with school dinners, a failed referendum and an allowance increase is hardly enough for the shit they had to shovel.
They looked like they were taken to the cleaners.
All fair enough in its own way, and maybe they are and were right. However, when after many decades of campaigning for a coalition-style government they finally got one, they were thoroughly miserable about it and kept dissing it. They managed both to piss off those voters who are primarily motivated by anti-Tory prejudice without making a positive pitch in 2015 to those voters who actually quite liked the coalition. Who can be surprised that it didn't work out well for them?
As for anti-LD sniping from the Conservative backbenches during the Coalition years, that's completely different, because the Conservatives have never liked coalitions or advocated a voting system which would make them inevitable. So that sniping didn't trash their own political positioning.
The AV referendum was a defeat for the Lib Dems. By getting the referendum and then losing so badly, they set their cause backwards. Had the vote never been held, it would be easier to get a future referendum. In any case, they never really wanted AV anyway and given how high their active negative ratings were by 2015, it could have worked against them anyway.
Which leaves school dinners. And if that's all you've got to crow about after 5 years, it's pretty thin gruel.
The Lib Dems should have prioritised tuition fees in terms of spending commitments, should have prioritised Lords reform for their constitutional aspirations, and made a positive case for the coalition as an effective exhibition of the consensual politics they advocate anyway.
I think they can claim credit for pupil premium?
Otherwise I'd say their legacy was to save Cameron from the more extreme elements of his party having too much influence on policy.
The former because it was a signed manifesto pledge, the latter for visibility and reputation.
The Tories (as we have recently discovered) would have had to have gone for it.
They bottled even that - had they insisted on a meaningful form of PR, I would've voted for it; as it was... pfffft. They would probably still have lost, but at least they would've tried.
And this from the party that was supposed to be supportive of families.
I see there are no plans to change this ruling and in fact they wish to increase the threshold.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/06/richard-holden-how-and-why-the-libdems-went-backwards-in-every-seat-they-were-defending-last-month.html
The SNP leader swept into office on a wave of blather about a ‘new politics’ and ‘one Scotland’. The Salmond smirk had been wiped away and replaced by consensus and unity and jolly japes on social media between Miss Sturgeon and her opponents. What a difference a couple of years makes. No longer Mother of the Nation, she is now at war with the country’s puppies. The First Minister has somehow gone from Indira Gandhi to Cruella de Vil.
https://stephendaisley.com/2017/06/23/watching-trumps-twitter-come-to-life-at-fmqs/
Attacking the LibDems is a different (and excellent) thing.
Home Office would be a better bet. A liberal policy on immigration, drugs etc. would have been politically damaging to the Tories and potentially quite helpful to the Lib Dems. Not sure Cameron would have agreed.
That they didn't see tuition fees as a red line still astounds me. I believe the claim that the Tory negotiators were extremely surprised that the Lib Dems conceded this - almost without being asked!
Overall I think they spread their influence wide but shallow, watering down some Tory proposals. Instead they should have relinquished control over a large number of areas and insisted they were in charge of a much smaller number.
The Lords was a major error. Had they prioritised that rather than AV, they could have banked a fully- (or predominantly-)elected upper house, elected by PR. It might not have done them much practical good for the time being, given their collapse in support, but would have clipped the wings of the power of governments of other parties.
On the boat in the marina right now sorting out my fishing kit.
Lovely and hot. Time for a quick siesta.
The endgame for them is not to move Euro denominated trading to Europe, but to try and force London's (and New York's) vast pools of capital onto the continent. There are no scenarios where London's capital markets are drawn to the continent, simply because investors don't trust the EU, ECJ or ECB to protect their money. Anyone who invests on the continent does so knowing that at some stage the EU will ask the ECJ/ECB to put the needs of the EU ahead of investors (see the Cyprus bank bail in).
For the record, my wife is not Thai and I don't have the money to buy women, hence our battles with the Home Office.
Here's the thing: the UK PM has to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7165000/conservative-manifesto.html
https://twitter.com/CraigOliver100
Still miss him, May and all these candidates being touted to replace her aren't in the same league as him.
The income threshold is now the main thing cutting low skiled non-EU migration. This demographic mainly comes through family migration routes for economic purposes. I think it would be preferable to bring back the primary purpose rule myself. Getting rid of one without bringing back the other would would make migration much higher.
My sympathies. I'm about to go through the same hoops (currently living in non-EU country with non-EU wife I met and married abroad) and hope we can use Brexit as a way to straighten the rules.
We all know the abuses came from two or three countries where everyone was having an arranged marriage with their cousin, outside the EU we may be able to restrict those countries without falling foul of 'human rights' rulings which currently give British citizens fewer rights than others in their own country.
required foreign nationals married to British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not to obtain British residency.
Such a requirement still exists if you are attempting to gain a visa for say, an adopted child, because the same "communities" also abused that process by having relatives in their home country "gift" children to them so they could bring them to the UK and have them educated and medicated at the public expense.
You must be one of the following:
married or civil partners
living together in a relationship for 2 years
engaged to be married or to become civil partners
Apply as a fiance and get married in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40370331
As it turned out, those predictions were a touch pessimistic.
In addition, our first move is portrayed as generous and open, the EUs first move will be to ask for more and set out a divorce demand.
Tactically pretty sound manouvere.