Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
The best way is not to make it more expensive and complex than it is now. Reducing the size of the talent pool from which you can recruit without needing government permission will make it harder for businesses and so disincentivise investment in growth.
How is the size of the talent pool being reduced? Surely it is being increased.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
Expensive bread, cheap New Zealand wine, terrible cheese.
People seem more exercised over Charlottesville on pb, than in LA.
PB is full of SJW's thse days what did you expect
I don't mean to sound obsessive, but why is bread three times the price in the US it is in the UK. And it's worse too.
Why???
What has the price of bread to do with misguided people who only ever see things from one point of view?
Understanding SJWs is easy.
Understanding why a simple concoction of wheat, yeast and heat is massively more expensive in one place than another is much less easy.
I seek wisdom, not easy answers.
Going back to basics: strong white flour, the kind you need for bread, is 80p per 1.5kg at Tesco, or twice that if you unnecessarily pay for the branded Allisons (?) version. For the own brand that is about 3.3lb for a usd. How does that compare? I'm not doing dried yeast because if you have a pot of sourdough culture you don't need yeast, and all the bread in Cal. seems to be sourdough (at least in restaurants). SF is the sourdough capital of the world and you can buy a sourdough starter there for say $5 if you can't be bothered to breed your own (and you only pay once, it is immortal if fed a teaspoon of flour occasionally). As for the methodology, I believe your dad is an authority.
Edit to add the crucial bit: 1.5 kg -> about 3 standardish size loaves, so your unit cost is 27p plus a bit of electric. A big-ass bakery is presumably paying a fraction of the retail price for flour, obv.
I miss the late minutes bread wars. My local Safeway (as a student) had its own brand bread at 4p a loaf at the very peak of the war. Below the electricity cost of running the ovens.
The worst quality bread I'd ever eaten obviously but I was a student so, whatever.
I imagine we'll be hearing plenty more about it. The Tory strategy is now perfectly clear: despite the election result, they're planning to walk out of the Brexit negotiations and will hope to do so having built a huge well of grievance against the EU. This case will be a part of that.
In fairness the Conservatives have been very clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. And so it is, for their electoral prospects.
Of course - the Tories will always put party first. But you cannot build an economy on the back of gushing headlines in the Mail, Sun and Telegraph. At some point voters will notice they are a lot poorer and the public services they rely on are getting even worse. When the White Cliffs of Dover, No Surrender, Fight Them On The Beaches strategy was first presented the Tories were 20 points clear in the polls and Jeremy Corbyn was electoral poison. Neither now apply. A showdown may deliver a temporary boost, but it's hard to see how it can be sustained.
Lol the Tories put party first no more and no less than any other party. Get over yourself.
The Tories always tell us they put country first. I agree with you. They don't.
And in that although you cannot bring yourself to admit it they are identical to Labour, etc...
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
The best way is not to make it more expensive and complex than it is now. Reducing the size of the talent pool from which you can recruit without needing government permission will make it harder for businesses and so disincentivise investment in growth.
How is the size of the talent pool being reduced? Surely it is being increased.
The government is not proposing to liberalise immigration laws.
Expensive bread, cheap New Zealand wine, terrible cheese.
People seem more exercised over Charlottesville on pb, than in LA.
PB is full of SJW's thse days what did you expect
I don't mean to sound obsessive, but why is bread three times the price in the US it is in the UK. And it's worse too.
Why???
I'm surprised you haven't thought of this as a business opportunity.
Most processed foods in the US are relatively unpalatable, given their apparent obsession with adding sugar (usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup - essentially a poison) to everything. You need to find a decent craft bakery, some of which are superior to anything I've found in the UK.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
I imagine we'll be hearing plenty more about it. The Tory strategy is now perfectly clear: despite the election result, they're planning to walk out of the Brexit negotiations and will hope to do so having built a huge well of grievance against the EU. This case will be a part of that.
In fairness the Conservatives have been very clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. And so it is, for their electoral prospects.
Of course - the Tories will always put party first. But you cannot build an economy on the back of gushing headlines in the Mail, Sun and Telegraph. At some point voters will notice they are a lot poorer and the public services they rely on are getting even worse. When the White Cliffs of Dover, No Surrender, Fight Them On The Beaches strategy was first presented the Tories were 20 points clear in the polls and Jeremy Corbyn was electoral poison. Neither now apply. A showdown may deliver a temporary boost, but it's hard to see how it can be sustained.
Lol the Tories put party first no more and no less than any other party. Get over yourself.
The Tories always tell us they put country first. I agree with you. They don't.
And in that although you cannot bring yourself to admit it they are identical to Labour, etc...
OK I'm back from self imposed exile knowing I'll regret it.
I'm reading that the Tories put party before country, its because they absolutely believe that what they stand for is best for the country. Ditto the labour party, they believe renationalisation is best for the country. The lib dems believe being in the EU is best, etc etc.
The blind tribalism on here is very juvenile.
There is also the question of what do you mean by 'the country'. Do you mean the 60-odd million people who live here, or 'the establishment'? Or something else?
Good point, ask 100 people what is meant by putting the country first you'll get 100 different responses.
Every party has an ideology that believes is best for people, they differ enormously. People taking the moral high ground in saying they put the country first are ridiculous.
Tribalism is the ruination of democracy, read this site for myopic, ill considered garbage from all sides.
In many parts of the political spectrum the goal for the nation and the population is the same or very similar, the belief in how you achieve that goal is different.
The divergence of goals comes with the travel to hard left or hard right or ideologies beyond the normal definitions of Left / Right
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Of course we can. We choose not to. Calling me stupid when you do not understand this makes you look, er, rather stupid.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
OK I'm back from self imposed exile knowing I'll regret it.
I'm reading that the Tories put party before country, its because they absolutely believe that what they stand for is best for the country. Ditto the labour party, they believe renationalisation is best for the country. The lib dems believe being in the EU is best, etc etc.
The blind tribalism on here is very juvenile.
There is also the question of what do you mean by 'the country'. Do you mean the 60-odd million people who live here, or 'the establishment'? Or something else?
Good point, ask 100 people what is meant by putting the country first you'll get 100 different responses.
Every party has an ideology that believes is best for people, they differ enormously. People taking the moral high ground in saying they put the country first are ridiculous.
Tribalism is the ruination of democracy, read this site for myopic, ill considered garbage from all sides.
In many parts of the political spectrum the goal for the nation and the population is the same or very similar, the belief in how you achieve that goal is different.
The divergence of goals comes with the travel to hard left or hard right or ideologies beyond the normal definitions of Left / Right
Na, according to Southam the Tories are a bunch of scheming bastards hell bent on destroying the country to further the party.
I think that's an unfair caricature of the many decent MPs who are trying to do what they can to make the country a better place.
Amused by the Labour party response to Sarah Chapman. A very odd accusation of Islamophobia.
I'd have suggested that the Rotherham taxi-drivers were not too Islamist in the first place. Taking drugs, drinking alcohol, raping under-age girls they've just met ... Not sure that's recommended behaviour in the Koran. A more accurate description of the perpetrators would be racist paedophiles
Preferentially choosing white girls because of their 'bad behaviour' and the cultural feeling that they are easy and probably deserve it is racism. Their religion, if any, is less relevant.
Don't Labour understand that Ms Chapman is a feminist, and in Labour's game of Top Trumps, she'll side with raped girls rather than male pseudo-Islamists? Momentum, of course, would rather she told lies in the Guardian than tell the truth in the Sun.
Labour putting the country first pakislamistan! Don't tell SO!
No way can splitting the cost of a single election leaflet between national and local spending be legal. If it is then it is a total piss take of the rules and that loophole needs to be closed down.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
Several of our naturalised Filipino nurses said the same. "Why can these Portuguese just walk in, when I need to pay for a visa and take an exam?"
Though of course it is going to be a levelling down rather than levelling up. The government wants to reduce non EU immigration too.
Or is it? I suspect we will just end up with far more non-EU migration.
The difference being that we can choose who we allow in - more nurses from the Philippines if we need them, and fewer people like this guy from Lithuania:
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Which EU treaty would prevent us offering free movement of labour to Australia tomorrow?
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
I'll believe it when I see it
if you seriously think that the Inspecteur du travail has suddenly become a free market liberal you will be sorely disappointed
the fun in France starts next month when everyone gets back off holiday - imo the CGT will crucify him
Expensive bread, cheap New Zealand wine, terrible cheese.
People seem more exercised over Charlottesville on pb, than in LA.
PB is full of SJW's thse days what did you expect
I don't mean to sound obsessive, but why is bread three times the price in the US it is in the UK. And it's worse too.
Why???
What has the price of bread to do with misguided people who only ever see things from one point of view?
Understanding SJWs is easy.
Understanding why a simple concoction of wheat, yeast and heat is massively more expensive in one place than another is much less easy.
I seek wisdom, not easy answers.
Going back to basics: strong white flour, the kind you need for bread, is 80p per 1.5kg at Tesco, or twice that if you unnecessarily pay for the branded Allisons (?) version. For the own brand that is about 3.3lb for a usd. How does that compare? I'm not doing dried yeast because if you have a pot of sourdough culture you don't need yeast, and all the bread in Cal. seems to be sourdough (at least in restaurants). SF is the sourdough capital of the world and you can buy a sourdough starter there for say $5 if you can't be bothered to breed your own (and you only pay once, it is immortal if fed a teaspoon of flour occasionally). As for the methodology, I believe your dad is an authority.
Edit to add the crucial bit: 1.5 kg -> about 3 standardish size loaves, so your unit cost is 27p plus a bit of electric. A big-ass bakery is presumably paying a fraction of the retail price for flour, obv.
I miss the late minutes bread wars. My local Safeway (as a student) had its own brand bread at 4p a loaf at the very peak of the war. Below the electricity cost of running the ovens.
The worst quality bread I'd ever eaten obviously but I was a student so, whatever.
Fresh-baked bread from supermarket bakeries is delicious.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Of course we can. We choose not to. Calling me stupid when you do not understand this makes you look, er, rather stupid.
I'm afraid your posts have proven you to be a discriminatory hypocrite. I want us to recruit people globally on a level playing field, you want to favour EU residents.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
The best way is not to make it more expensive and complex than it is now. Reducing the size of the talent pool from which you can recruit without needing government permission will make it harder for businesses and so disincentivise investment in growth.
This element is often overlooked; we will in effect be asking the government to pick winners. As Adam Posen discusses in a link I posted earlier, this is back to a command economy.
Amused by the Labour party response to Sarah Chapman. A very odd accusation of Islamophobia.
I'd have suggested that the Rotherham taxi-drivers were not too Islamist in the first place. Taking drugs, drinking alcohol, raping under-age girls they've just met ... Not sure that's recommended behaviour in the Koran. A more accurate description of the perpetrators would be racist paedophiles
Preferentially choosing white girls because of their 'bad behaviour' and the cultural feeling that they are easy and probably deserve it is racism. Their religion, if any, is less relevant.
Don't Labour understand that Ms Chapman is a feminist, and in Labour's game of Top Trumps, she'll side with raped girls rather than male pseudo-Islamists? Momentum, of course, would rather she told lies in the Guardian than tell the truth in the Sun.
Labour putting the country first pakislamistan! Don't tell SO!
You are confusing me with a Labour supporter. The party's reaction to Sarah Champion's brave article was predictably depressing and utterly disgraceful.
Going back to bread, Britain invented the very, very efficient Chorleywood process for baking bread at industrial scale (to make up for crap wheat varieties we had).
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Which EU treaty would prevent us offering free movement of labour to Australia tomorrow?
James Chapman has at least established that there's a ready audience, on Twitter at least, for a new party that takes on Brexit. But he's not the hero we need.
I don't think he's really done that. He has made hay in the silly season and then made himself look silly. Clearly, some of what he Tweeted hit a nerve, but most people haven't noticed.
Mind you, in today's surly atmosphere, can you imagine what the papers would have made of Batman.
"Elitist billionaire's secret plot to sabotage Brexit
Exploited older worker Alfred Pennyworth reveals all"
Amused by the Labour party response to Sarah Chapman. A very odd accusation of Islamophobia.
I'd have suggested that the Rotherham taxi-drivers were not too Islamist in the first place. Taking drugs, drinking alcohol, raping under-age girls they've just met ... Not sure that's recommended behaviour in the Koran. A more accurate description of the perpetrators would be racist paedophiles
Preferentially choosing white girls because of their 'bad behaviour' and the cultural feeling that they are easy and probably deserve it is racism. Their religion, if any, is less relevant.
Don't Labour understand that Ms Chapman is a feminist, and in Labour's game of Top Trumps, she'll side with raped girls rather than male pseudo-Islamists? Momentum, of course, would rather she told lies in the Guardian than tell the truth in the Sun.
Labour putting the country first pakislamistan! Don't tell SO!
You are confusing me with a Labour supporter. The party's reaction to Sarah Champion's brave article was predictably depressing and utterly disgraceful.
Somebody who isn't a labour or EU supporter has clearly hacked your account this morning
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
No way can splitting the cost of a single election leaflet between national and local spending be legal. If it is then it is a total piss take of the rules and that loophole needs to be closed down.
"It is a normal and legal part of election expenditure to split some costs between different legal areas. For example, a leaflet might both promote a local election candidate and a general election candidate and as a result its costs are split between the two candidate’s different expense limits."
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
The big problem, as I understand it, is that up until now Eire has had the same relationship with the rest of Europe as the UK. They joined the EEC when we did and became members of the EU when we did. After Brexit, the UK and Eire will have different relationships to the rest of Europe, which inevitably means some sort of border control.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Which EU treaty would prevent us offering free movement of labour to Australia tomorrow?
To Australia?
That's for Australia to decide not the EU
The proposal is movement of labour between the UK and Australia (as Hannan wants). Being in the EU wouldn't stop this if we both wanted it.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
I imagine we'll be hearing plenty more about it. The Tory strategy is now perfectly clear: despite the election result, they're planning to walk out of the Brexit negotiations and will hope to do so having built a huge well of grievance against the EU. This case will be a part of that.
In fairness the Conservatives have been very clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. And so it is, for their electoral prospects.
Of course - the Tories will always put party first. But you cannot build an economy on the back of gushing headlines in the Mail, Sun and Telegraph. At some point voters will notice they are a lot poorer and the public services they rely on are getting even worse. When the White Cliffs of Dover, No Surrender, Fight Them On The Beaches strategy was first presented the Tories were 20 points clear in the polls and Jeremy Corbyn was electoral poison. Neither now apply. A showdown may deliver a temporary boost, but it's hard to see how it can be sustained.
Lol the Tories put party first no more and no less than any other party. Get over yourself.
The Tories always tell us they put country first. I agree with you. They don't.
And in that although you cannot bring yourself to admit it they are identical to Labour, etc...
No other party waves the flag like the Tories.
True - but at least they wave ours - the others wave everyone else's!
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
Going back to bread, Britain invented the very, very efficient Chorleywood process for baking bread at industrial scale (to make up for crap wheat varieties we had).
It allows much cheaper bread production.
Pilsbury Bread Flour, 5 lbs = $2.66 at Walmart. $0.53 a lb vs $0.31 at Tesco.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
I'll believe it when I see it
if you seriously think that the Inspecteur du travail has suddenly become a free market liberal you will be sorely disappointed
the fun in France starts next month when everyone gets back off holiday - imo the CGT will crucify him
Going back to bread, Britain invented the very, very efficient Chorleywood process for baking bread at industrial scale (to make up for crap wheat varieties we had).
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
Why on earth do I want to read that, I'm not a govt spokesman or supporter.
You asked me what I want, not what the govt is doing.
What you want is not remotely grounded in reality and the fact that it is not what the government is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Remainers'.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Which EU treaty would prevent us offering free movement of labour to Australia tomorrow?
To Australia?
That's for Australia to decide not the EU
The proposal is movement of labour between the UK and Australia (as Hannan wants). Being in the EU wouldn't stop this if we both wanted it.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
I'll believe it when I see it
if you seriously think that the Inspecteur du travail has suddenly become a free market liberal you will be sorely disappointed
the fun in France starts next month when everyone gets back off holiday - imo the CGT will crucify him
Macron has proved to be an empty and unpopularvessel.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win? It isn't a race with a clear winner and loser, it's an episode in an ongoing contest over political influence and prestige in which context is crucial. She clearly diminished herself and her party. Labour clearly improved their position. There's a reason Corbyn got an ovation from MPs who despise him while she shed tears.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
Why on earth do I want to read that, I'm not a govt spokesman or supporter.
You asked me what I want, not what the govt is doing.
What you want is not remotely grounded in reality and the fact that it is not what the government is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Remainers'.
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
We can't do that while we're in the EU.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
Of course we can. We choose not to. Calling me stupid when you do not understand this makes you look, er, rather stupid.
I'm afraid your posts have proven you to be a discriminatory hypocrite. I want us to recruit people globally on a level playing field, you want to favour EU residents.
It really is very simple.
You claimed the EU forces us to discriminate against EU nationals. It doesn't. We choose to do it. You not understanding this does not make me stupid.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win? It isn't a race with a clear winner and loser, it's an episode in an ongoing contest over political influence and prestige in which context is crucial. She clearly diminished herself and her party. Labour clearly improved their position. There's a reason Corbyn got an ovation from MPs who despise him while she shed tears.
No way can splitting the cost of a single election leaflet between national and local spending be legal. If it is then it is a total piss take of the rules and that loophole needs to be closed down.
Did the mailshot from a certain political betting expert who definitely wasn't telling anyone who to vote for, oh no, certainly not, come under national or local spending I wonder?
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
I'll believe it when I see it
if you seriously think that the Inspecteur du travail has suddenly become a free market liberal you will be sorely disappointed
the fun in France starts next month when everyone gets back off holiday - imo the CGT will crucify him
Yep, we'll see. Obviously, you'll chortle away at anything he does, but it may just turn out he does fair bit. He certainly sees the opportunity Brexit presents to France. That's a goid place from which to start.
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
Why on earth do I want to read that, I'm not a govt spokesman or supporter.
You asked me what I want, not what the govt is doing.
What you want is not remotely grounded in reality and the fact that it is not what the government is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Remainers'.
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
Australia discriminates in favour of New Zealand, whose citizens can settle and get access to benefits.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win? It isn't a race with a clear winner and loser, it's an episode in an ongoing contest over political influence and prestige in which context is crucial. She clearly diminished herself and her party. Labour clearly improved their position. There's a reason Corbyn got an ovation from MPs who despise him while she shed tears.
It was a win on points, but also a poor result.
Maybe being left with a minority government in this climate, with the poison chalice of Brexit to deal with, is a more crushing loss in the grand scheme of things than if she'd actually lost her majority.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
UK labour law is fundamentally different from European it has substantial advantages on flexibility, taxes and working hours
nobody in their right mind would employ someone in France as a permanernt employee
The French have decided to change that. Flexible labour laws are only part of the equation. Being able to recruit the best people for the job without having to ask the government permission is also very important.
I'll believe it when I see it
if you seriously think that the Inspecteur du travail has suddenly become a free market liberal you will be sorely disappointed
the fun in France starts next month when everyone gets back off holiday - imo the CGT will crucify him
Yep, we'll see. Obviously, you'll chortle away at anything he does, but it may just turn out he does fair bit. He certainly sees the opportunity Brexit presents to France. That's a goid place from which to start.
Im a cynic when it comes to France changing, reading the German press increasingly so are they, something will give
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us to treat everybody the same regardless of nationality. If an Irishman has something to offer us he's welcome, if he wants to turn up at Dover with 4 kids, no job or home I'm afraid he's not welcome.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
Why on earth do I want to read that, I'm not a govt spokesman or supporter.
You asked me what I want, not what the govt is doing.
What you want is not remotely grounded in reality and the fact that it is not what the government is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Remainers'.
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
Australia discriminates in favour of New Zealand, whose citizens can settle and get access to benefits.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
I want us
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
I suggest you read the government's position paper. Your argument is both small-minded and misdirected.
Why on earth do I want to read that, I'm not a govt spokesman or supporter.
You asked me what I want, not what the govt is doing.
What you want is not remotely grounded in reality and the fact that it is not what the government is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Remainers'.
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
Australia discriminates in favour of New Zealand, whose citizens can settle and get access to benefits.
And no I don't.
Good for them
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
That is absolute crap. Whatever that creep Blair spoke it wasn't RP (tho I am sure RP was his first language).
Another question for Remainers, specifically @southam:
Why do you say we have a level playing field for recruitment?
Ask non EU residents if they agree with you.
We have a level playing field with other European countries. When we make it more expensive and complicated to recruit talent we become a less atteactive location to set up and build companies, as well as less attractive for potential immigrants. It's all in here:
But surely the best way is for us to be able to attract the best people from across the globe rather than a small proportion of it.
Do you think its fair to discriminate against, for example, Pakistanis?
If you're in favour of continuing free movement with Ireland then you cannot argue based on some universal principle of treating every other state in the same way.
I'll be blunt:
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
I'm not conflating anything; I'm talking about immigration. Are you suggesting you would take away the right of Irish citizens to settle in the UK?
Why would the UK do that? They had that right before being in the EU, so no reason why it can't continue after.
That was before the UK acquired some newfound principles about not wanting to 'discriminate' against countries with which it doesn't have free movement. Or is it in fact not a principle but just sanctimonious rhetoric?
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Hardly a compelling reason to stay in!
I'm yet to see a convincing argument for leaving that outwieghs the uncertainty and risk of doing so and up to now feal as unconvinced as ever.
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
UK & Ireland used to be part of the same country less than a century ago New Zealand and Australia used to be part of the same empire less than a century ago UK and Poland have been members of the same supranational organisation for less than 15 years
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
That is absolute crap. Whatever that creep Blair spoke it wasn't RP (tho I am sure RP was his first language).
Just as well Prezza never became PM.. no one understood what he was talking about
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
UK & Ireland used to be part of the same country less than a century ago New Zealand and Australia used to be part of the same empire less than a century ago UK and Poland have been members of the same supranational organisation for less than 15 years
Can you not see the difference?
The difference is that some see the benefit of breaking down barriers within our own continent and others do not. I pity those who do not.
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
Good point. Think of the millions of British killed in various European wars and the unusual period of peace in the past seventy years. If that's not shared history, what is it?
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
That is absolute crap. Whatever that creep Blair spoke it wasn't RP (tho I am sure RP was his first language).
Lloyd George? James Callaghan was definitely not RP - he had an unmistakeable burr in his voice.
And RP did not exist 150 years ago. The Duke of Wellington had a thick Dublin accent ;-)
Supermarkets are really, really expensive. Bread in the UK is about $1/loaf; in the US it's $2-4. Unbelievable. Not clear why bread is priced so differently.
Australian and NZ wine is much cheaper. Dog Point Marlborough Sauvignion Blanc is £18/bottle in the UK, and $12/bottle in the US.
Yay!
I can't conceive of paying £18 for a bottle of Australian wine.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
Australia discriminates in favour of New Zealand, whose citizens can settle and get access to benefits.
And no I don't.
Good for them
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
Australia gives preference to a single, smaller neighbour not dozens of "neighbours" thousands of miles away.
Look at it from New Zealand's perspective if it helps. It gives preference to a larger neighbour thousands of miles away with many times its own population.
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
Good point. Think of the millions of British killed in various European wars and the unusual period of peace in the past seventy years. If that's not shared history, what is it?
More to do with NATO and the threat of Russia I'd have thought.
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
UK & Ireland used to be part of the same country less than a century ago New Zealand and Australia used to be part of the same empire less than a century ago UK and Poland have been members of the same supranational organisation for less than 15 years
Can you not see the difference?
The difference is that some see the benefit of breaking down barriers within our own continent and others do not. I pity those who do not.
Don't deflect. Can you not see the clear differences between the relationships? You're the one who said that the relationships were comparable.
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
Good point. Think of the millions of British killed in various European wars and the unusual period of peace in the past seventy years. If that's not shared history, what is it?
More to do with NATO and the threat of Russia I'd have thought.
Turkey is a member of NATO, which should be sufficient to disprove any notion that it is NATO that has created the harmony that exists between its European members.
UK & Ireland used to be part of the same country less than a century ago New Zealand and Australia used to be part of the same empire less than a century ago UK and Poland have been members of the same supranational organisation for less than 15 years
Can you not see the difference?
The difference is you think conquest (Empire and Nation building) trumps democracy (supranational union)
I'd argue for a special exemption for Ireland because of the shared history, like I would for Scotland if they were to leave.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
Good point. Think of the millions of British killed in various European wars and the unusual period of peace in the past seventy years. If that's not shared history, what is it?
More to do with NATO and the threat of Russia I'd have thought.
Turkey is a member of NATO, which should be sufficient to disprove any notion that it is NATO that has created the harmony that exists between its European members.
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
Australia discriminates in favour of New Zealand, whose citizens can settle and get access to benefits.
And no I don't.
Good for them
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
Australia gives preference to a single, smaller neighbour not dozens of "neighbours" thousands of miles away.
Look at it from New Zealand's perspective if it helps. It gives preference to a larger neighbour thousands of miles away with many times its own population.
Though people here keep asking for an Australian system not a Kiwi system so it doesn't help.
New Zealand still gives preference to just a single neighbour.
UK & Ireland used to be part of the same country less than a century ago New Zealand and Australia used to be part of the same empire less than a century ago UK and Poland have been members of the same supranational organisation for less than 15 years
Can you not see the difference?
The difference is you think conquest (Empire and Nation building) trumps democracy (supranational union)
It's a view...
It's to do with cultural ties not empire building. I'm not suggesting we offer freedom of movement to Australia or New Zealand, I'm expressing why those two countries might wish to do the same between themselves.
Mr. 43, you could cite the period after the Napoleonic War just as easily. It wouldn't make a pro-EU point, though.
Or you could cite the Pax Romana.
I don't see why it wouldn't make a pro-EU point. The EU promotes democracy, liberty and the rule of law, which are my values. You don't have to agree. It will continue to do so (or not if you think otherwise) regardless of whether the UK is a member of the organisation.
New Zealand still gives preference to just a single neighbour.
An interesting distinction. I thought we were leaving to avoid being part of the 'EU superstate'? At what point will you consider that we are faced with a single neighbour? If the answer is some approximation of never, perhaps you should rethink your view of what the EU is likely to become, as seen from the continent of Europe.
The argument for "Europe" switches to and fro, from claims about practical benefits to expressions of political idealism and back again. If one disagrees with advocates of "Europe" about the practical advantages, they say, "Well, you may be right about this or that disadvantage, but surely it's a price worth paying for such a wonderful political ideal." And if one casts doubt on the political desirability of the ideal, they reply, "Never mind about that, just think of the economic advantages." The truth is that both arguments for "Europe" are fundamentally flawed.
What I want is an immigration policy similar to that of Australia. That is very much a reality despite your constant state of denial.
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
Australia discriminates in favour of New Zealand, whose citizens can settle and get access to benefits.
And no I don't.
Good for them
And you want a system like Australia, i.e. one that gives preferential treatment to our neighbours, like what we have now.
Australia gives preference to a single, smaller neighbour not dozens of "neighbours" thousands of miles away.
Nowhere in the EU is as far from the UK as New Zealand is from Australia.
Really? Coast to coast New Zealand is 1,056 miles from Australia as the crow flies with a grand total of zero neighbouring nations inbetween.
The UK is coast to coast over 2,000 miles from Greece as the crow flies with potentially 10 other nations in your flight path (let alone the other nations not in a straight line).
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
Well highlighted, if you accept this nonsensical argument you can "prove" anything...
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU
Comments
Those are the facts - all else is spin.
Are you deliberately conflating visiting with immigration or are you stupid?
EDIT: its perfectly possible that the answer is both.
Champion, indeed. Thanks. Now amended.
My excuse - genuine amusement at how Labour can turn a potential victory into defeat.
Too late, but ta for the correction.
The worst quality bread I'd ever eaten obviously but I was a student so, whatever.
You need to find a decent craft bakery, some of which are superior to anything I've found in the UK.
You are making yourself look very silly on this subject.
The divergence of goals comes with the travel to hard left or hard right or ideologies beyond the normal definitions of Left / Right
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/898091304273534976
I think that's an unfair caricature of the many decent MPs who are trying to do what they can to make the country a better place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/16/man-admits-killing-pensioner-setting-fire-grounds-of2m-home/
if you seriously think that the Inspecteur du travail has suddenly become a free market liberal you will be sorely disappointed
the fun in France starts next month when everyone gets back off holiday - imo the CGT will crucify him
It really is very simple.
What about you - do you want to discriminate like the other Remainers?
It allows much cheaper bread production.
That's for Australia to decide not the EU
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638135/6.3703_DEXEU_Northern_Ireland_and_Ireland_INTERACTIVE.pdf
"The party's reaction to Sarah Champion's brave article was predictably depressing and utterly disgraceful."
I think it's a worrying sign. I doubt it will go down well in the North with all but the real believers.
You asked me what I want, not what the govt is doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process
Do you support it?
Incidentally - do you live in Ireland?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/898094743472754688
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
And no I don't.
New Zealand and Australia used to be part of the same empire less than a century ago
UK and Poland have been members of the same supranational organisation for less than 15 years
Can you not see the difference?
I want a system where we choose who comes here.
The majority of the electorate agrees with me.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/897940437008211969
And RP did not exist 150 years ago. The Duke of Wellington had a thick Dublin accent ;-)
Or you could cite the Pax Romana.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
It's a view...
New Zealand still gives preference to just a single neighbour.
But hey, trolls gotta troll
Maybe someone should leak that British cows were used for the seat upholstery. Might kickstart an investigation.
The argument for "Europe" switches to and fro, from claims about practical benefits to expressions of political idealism and back again. If one disagrees with advocates of "Europe" about the practical advantages, they say, "Well, you may be right about this or that disadvantage, but surely it's a price worth paying for such a wonderful political ideal." And if one casts doubt on the political desirability of the ideal, they reply, "Never mind about that, just think of the economic advantages." The truth is that both arguments for "Europe" are fundamentally flawed.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/1995-03-01/case-against-europe
The UK is coast to coast over 2,000 miles from Greece as the crow flies with potentially 10 other nations in your flight path (let alone the other nations not in a straight line).
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU