Forget statues, according to cnn, ESPN reassigned a commentator as his name is Robert Lee (an Asian American) because concerns might be insensitive / offensive.
I would have to change my name if I lived in America today.
Your name is Abraham Lincoln?
Close - lol ,my name is a hero to the confederasy ;-)
Brexit has caused ructions for many Finns in Britain and Brits in Finland, and on Wednesday HS takes a look at one case in some detail. Researcher Eva Johanna Holmberg received a letter from the Home Office this month telling her that she had no right to be in Britain and had one month to leave the country.
Her mistake, it seems, was to apply via the Home Office website for the status of 'qualified person'--an EU citizen who has lived in the UK for five years and is therefore entitled to 'settled status' and similar rights to British citizens.
This is not yet a necessary step for EU citizens in the UK, but Holmberg decided to do it anyway for peace of mind and to get the admin out of the way. The website looked simple, she tells HS, so she sent in her application. Unfortunately it was rejected and the UK government told her to leave.
She immediately contacted lawyers, who said the removal letter was almost certainly without foundation but difficult to rescind. Her partner contacted the local MP, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and she promised to help.
But despite legal eagles and a prominent politician in her corner, Holmberg remains in limbo. Her advocates are unsure why exactly her application was rejected but suspect it might be to do with her employment situation. Although she works for Queen Mary University in London, her employer is technically Helsinki University--and that might not suffice for UK authorities.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
So it was her fuck up. What a surprise
The best solution would be to let her re-apply w the correct details. Otherwise we could be one academic fellow studying British travel in the 17th century short!
I'd forgotten that Leavers despise experts. With that in mind, she's lucky she's not being subjected to ordeal by fire.
It is a sad indictment of Britain today that our kids have neither the drive nor the work ethic to go into the fields and pick the 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture'
Her LinkedIn says she is currently at Helsinki Uni as and Academy Research fellow studying 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture, 1.9. 2016-31.8.2021'
The local paper has covered her story - and correct me if I'm mistaken, but that doesn't look like Brighton behind her....
Neither of you are considering the more basic question. Is this really someone who Britain should need or want to deport?
You see but you do not observe:
Academy of Finland Research Fellow, Visiting Fellow
How can we deport someone who isn't here?
Better get more facts eh?
Or do you prefer a rush to judgment - like in Irene Clennell's case?
"Visiting Fellow" is an academic title. As usual, your reading skills are letting you down.
And well done for ducking the question directly asked of you (which could also be applied to Ms Clennell).
As you're clearly not in possession of all the facts, but seem to subscribe to the 'Hard cases make good laws' and 'Rush to Judgment' schools of thought I'll leave you to your Brexit fantasies.
If only we could turn the clock back a year when the Home Office reached sound decisions based on accurately submitted paperwork, everything would be so much nicer eh?
I look forward to all of the facts emerging.....
Well ducked again. One day you'll give a straight answer to a straight question instead of throwing up dust in a too-transparent manner.
Brexit has caused ructions for many Finns in Britain and Brits in Finland, and on Wednesday HS takes a look at one case in some detail. Researcher Eva Johanna Holmberg received a letter from the Home Office this month telling her that she had no right to be in Britain and had one month to leave the country.
Her mistake, it seems, was to apply via the Home Office website for the status of 'qualified person'--an EU citizen who has lived in the UK for five years and is therefore entitled to 'settled status' and similar rights to British citizens.
This is not yet a necessary step for EU citizens in the UK, but Holmberg decided to do it anyway for peace of mind and to get the admin out of the way. The website looked simple, she tells HS, so she sent in her application. Unfortunately it was rejected and the UK government told her to leave.
She immediately contacted lawyers, who said the removal letter was almost certainly without foundation but difficult to rescind. Her partner contacted the local MP, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and she promised to help.
But despite legal eagles and a prominent politician in her corner, Holmberg remains in limbo. Her advocates are unsure why exactly her application was rejected but suspect it might be to do with her employment situation. Although she works for Queen Mary University in London, her employer is technically Helsinki University--and that might not suffice for UK authorities.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
Brexit has caused ructions for many Finns in Britain and Brits in Finland, and on Wednesday HS takes a look at one case in some detail. Researcher Eva Johanna Holmberg received a letter from the Home Office this month telling her that she had no right to be in Britain and had one month to leave the country.
Her mistake, it seems, was to apply via the Home Office website for the status of 'qualified person'--an EU citizen who has lived in the UK for five years and is therefore entitled to 'settled status' and similar rights to British citizens.
This is not yet a necessary step for EU citizens in the UK, but Holmberg decided to do it anyway for peace of mind and to get the admin out of the way. The website looked simple, she tells HS, so she sent in her application. Unfortunately it was rejected and the UK government told her to leave.
She immediately contacted lawyers, who said the removal letter was almost certainly without foundation but difficult to rescind. Her partner contacted the local MP, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and she promised to help.
But despite legal eagles and a prominent politician in her corner, Holmberg remains in limbo. Her advocates are unsure why exactly her application was rejected but suspect it might be to do with her employment situation. Although she works for Queen Mary University in London, her employer is technically Helsinki University--and that might not suffice for UK authorities.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
Interesting article Alistair but I'm not sure I agree that hung parliaments will continue to be frequent in the future. One thing you need to take into account is the number of non-Con, non-Lab seats. I've had a look at this:
Year Non C Non L seats % seats 1970 12 1.9% Feb-74 37 5.8% Oct-74 39 6.1% 1979 27 4.3% 1983 44 6.8% 1987 45 6.9% 1992 44 6.8% 1997 76 11.5% 2001 80 12.1% 2005 93 14.4% 2010 86 13.2% 2015 88 13.5% 2017 71 10.9%
Up to 1997 Con and Lab got over 93% of the seats combined so hung parliaments were rare. With the rise of the LDs and then the SNP the combined Con/Lab share has fallen below 90% increasing the window for hung parliaments.
If as some people think the SNP decline further next time then we could easily be back to about 40-50 non-Con/non-Lab seats and with so many close marginals the window between Con maj 1 and Lab maj 1 could easily be very small.
Surely statues need to be placed around the country for all the Brexit greats who gave freedom back to the people.Outside parliament David Davis ,Liam Fox , Boris Johnson .In prominent places around the region's Michael Gove ,Nigel Farage.A bank holiday on every anniversary of the referendum vote.
"Gordon Brown is not a popular figure among readers of the Daily Telegraph...Yet to his credit, Brown was also a man of big ideas, an attribute which seems sadly lacking in the mediocrity of today’s political landscape."
I'm puzzled by this comment. What big ideas did Brown have? I can't come up with any.
H
I do agree that no current politician has imagination or vision. But that was true in the 1950s and 1960s as well, or indeed the 1880s and 1890s. The bigger issue is that steady as she goes will hardly cut it now.
He nationalised the banks. This helped resolve the banking crisis, here and in many other countries which followed the basic idea. He managed to persuade the other world leaders (including newly elected Barack Obama) that this was not just a solution, but the only one. He was right, and had he failed to persuade them, the consequences for us alll would have been much more severe,
He was a crap PM, but this one idea stands to his eternal credit. And it certainly qualifies as a big one.
Was it his idea though? How much input did the likes of Darling and Vadera have into it?
True, it worked. But if he had forced the Treasury and the Bank of England to work together effectively in the previous five years on banking regulation, it might not have been necessary or at least not on such a scale.
My post has been criticised from two contradictory viewpoints. You and Cyclefree say the policy was sound, but attribute it to others, notably Darling, and another poster who reckons it was a crap idea anyway.
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
Oh, and I readily concede that Brown's spending policies contributed to the problem, so to some extent he was guilty of encouraging the fire he later helped to put out. He contribution to the conflagration should not be overestimated however. The problem really did start in the USA, and the amount of dodgy debt knocking around at the time was colossal and dwarfed Brown's own profligacy.
(The spivs in London Square Mile are of course not so easily exonerated but that's another story - It's well-documented in Silver's book The Signal and The Noise, if you are interested.)
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
I was joking. You are virtue signalling. I don't want this lady deported, I was just sure there would be more to it than the initial outrageux indicated.
How we Brexit is down to the elected government of the day, one that I didn't vote for.
Interesting article Alistair but I'm not sure I agree that hung parliaments will continue to be frequent in the future. One thing you need to take into account is the number of non-Con, non-Lab seats. I've had a look at this:
Year Non C Non L seats % seats 1970 12 1.9% Feb-74 37 5.8% Oct-74 39 6.1% 1979 27 4.3% 1983 44 6.8% 1987 45 6.9% 1992 44 6.8% 1997 76 11.5% 2001 80 12.1% 2005 93 14.4% 2010 86 13.2% 2015 88 13.5% 2017 71 10.9%
Up to 1997 Con and Lab got over 93% of the seats combined so hung parliaments were rare. With the rise of the LDs and then the SNP the combined Con/Lab share has fallen below 90% increasing the window for hung parliaments.
If as some people think the SNP decline further next time then we could easily be back to about 40-50 non-Con/non-Lab seats and with so many close marginals the window between Con maj 1 and Lab maj 1 could easily be very small.
The window will probably (though not definitely) be narrower next time than this. But you also have to look at the marginality of the seats too. If the Conservatives can buck history and do better in their third election after taking power, they might get an overall majority quite easily. But Labour have a lot more work to do, as I note in the article.
To mix metaphors, you need to think about the steepness of the slopes on either side as well as the width of the valley.
"Gordon Brown is not a popular figure among readers of the Daily Telegraph...Yet to his credit, Brown was also a man of big ideas, an attribute which seems sadly lacking in the mediocrity of today’s political landscape."
I'm puzzled by this comment. What big ideas did Brown have? I can't come up with any.
He did a lot of tinkering around the edges - tax credits spring to mind - but it was Blair who was the more imaginative. Indeed, on things like city academies and NHS reorganisations Brown was the one who blocked things, rather than started them.
I do agree that no current politician has imagination or vision. But that was true in the 1950s and 1960s as well, or indeed the 1880s and 1890s. The bigger issue is that steady as she goes will hardly cut it now.
Mastercardo ergo sum Spending is investment Debt is wealth
Mr Micawber "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
My post has been criticised from two contradictory viewpoints. You and Cyclefree say the policy was sound, but attribute it to others, notably Darling, and another poster who reckons it was a crap idea anyway.
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
Oh, and I readily concede that Brown's spending policies contributed to the problem, so to some extent he was guilty of encouraging the fire he later helped to put out. He contribution to the conflagration should not be overestimated however. The problem really did start in the USA, and the amount of dodgy debt knocking around at the time was colossal and dwarfed Brown's own profligacy.
(The spivs in London Square Mile are of course not so easily exonerated but that's another story - It's well-documented in Silver's book The Signal and The Noise, if you are interested.)
His conduct post-premiership also looks a lot better than what Tony Blair has been up to.
Brown's spending is a complete red herring. His major failing was light touch bank regulation - he was hardly alone in that - but as a Labour politician he really should have known better.
Brexit has caused ructions for many Finns in Britain and Brits in Finland, and on Wednesday HS takes a look at one case in some detail. Researcher Eva Johanna Holmberg received a letter from the Home Office this month telling her that she had no right to be in Britain and had one month to leave the country.
Her mistake, it seems, was to apply via the Home Office website for the status of 'qualified person'--an EU citizen who has lived in the UK for five years and is therefore entitled to 'settled status' and similar rights to British citizens.
This is not yet a necessary step for EU citizens in the UK, but Holmberg decided to do it anyway for peace of mind and to get the admin out of the way. The website looked simple, she tells HS, so she sent in her application. Unfortunately it was rejected and the UK government told her to leave.
She immediately contacted lawyers, who said the removal letter was almost certainly without foundation but difficult to rescind. Her partner contacted the local MP, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and she promised to help.
But despite legal eagles and a prominent politician in her corner, Holmberg remains in limbo. Her advocates are unsure why exactly her application was rejected but suspect it might be to do with her employment situation. Although she works for Queen Mary University in London, her employer is technically Helsinki University--and that might not suffice for UK authorities.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
So it was her fuck up. What a surprise
The best solution would be to let her re-apply w the correct details. Otherwise we could be one academic fellow studying British travel in the 17th century short!
I'd forgotten that Leavers despise experts. With that in mind, she's lucky she's not being subjected to ordeal by fire.
It is a sad indictment of Britain today that our kids have neither the drive nor the work ethic to go into the fields and pick the 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture'
yeah we're better off without her and her foreign "enquiring mind".
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
I was joking. You are virtue signalling. I don't want this lady deported, I was just sure there would be more to it than the initial outrageux indicated.
How we Brexit is down to the elected government of the day, one that I didn't vote for.
I am not virtue signalling. The issues are systemic. She is being deported because the UKBA is set up to make life difficult for foreigners and not to control our borders. The ones that get in are the well resourced, well connected and most willing to play the system. The government wants more of that after Brexit.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
That too. The immigrants that are most put off are those that are most marketable and have choices about where they go.
I loved presenting Sunday Politics, it was a privilege and honour to hold the political discourse up to the light for all those years and while I will miss it greatly I am delighted to continue to work for the BBC on This Week, Daily Politics and other projects.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
I was joking. You are virtue signalling. I don't want this lady deported, I was just sure there would be more to it than the initial outrageux indicated.
How we Brexit is down to the elected government of the day, one that I didn't vote for.
This is the core of Leavers' cognitive dissonance. You (not just you) say it's down to the government of the day, but I'm guessing you would cry blue murder if the government of the day said: we're staying in the single market.
You can't have your cake and eat it, no matter what implement it is served upon.
I loved presenting Sunday Politics, it was a privilege and honour to hold the political discourse up to the light for all those years and while I will miss it greatly I am delighted to continue to work for the BBC on This Week, Daily Politics and other projects.
Home Office sources said it seemed the letter was sent “in error”. The plot thickens.
She tried to MOT her car two months before it was due, it failed because trying to MOT your car that far ahead of the due date is an automatic fail, and then the garage said: you can't drive the car now.
Edit: I've no clue whether this actually is the case, but the analogy ROCKS (where's @kle4 when you need him!).
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
That too. The immigrants that are most put off are those that are most marketable and have choices about where they go.
Brexit has caused ructions for many Finns in Britain and Brits in Finland, and on Wednesday HS takes a look at one case in some detail. Researcher Eva Johanna Holmberg received a letter from the Home Office this month telling her that she had no right to be in Britain and had one month to leave the country.
This is not yet a necessary step for EU citizens in the UK, but Holmberg decided to do it anyway for peace of mind and to get the admin out of the way. The website looked simple, she tells HS, so she sent in her application. Unfortunately it was rejected and the UK government told her to leave.
She immediately contacted lawyers, who said the removal letter was almost certainly without foundation but difficult to rescind. Her partner contacted the local MP, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and she promised to help.
But despite legal eagles and a prominent politician in her corner, Holmberg remains in limbo. Her advocates are unsure why exactly her application was rejected but suspect it might be to do with her employment situation. Although she works for Queen Mary University in London, her employer is technically Helsinki University--and that might not suffice for UK authorities.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
So it was her fuck up. What a surprise
The best solution would be to let her re-apply w the correct details. Otherwise we could be one academic fellow studying British travel in the 17th century short!
I'd forgotten that Leavers despise experts. With that in mind, she's lucky she's not being subjected to ordeal by fire.
It is a sad indictment of Britain today that our kids have neither the drive nor the work ethic to go into the fields and pick the 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture'
yeah we're better off without her and her foreign "enquiring mind".
I am here as a resource to make people feel better about themselves, you are welcome.
It is a sad indictment of Britain today that our kids have neither the drive nor the work ethic to go into the fields and pick the 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture'
yeah we're better off without her and her foreign "enquiring mind".
Genuine question, who funds her studies here? I presume she does so herself?
Brexit has caused ructions for many Finns in Britain and Brits in Finland, and on Wednesday HS takes a look at one case in some detail. Researcher Eva Johanna Holmberg received a letter from the Home Office this month telling her that she had no right to be in Britain and had one month to leave the country.
This is not yet a necessary step for EU citizens in the UK, but Holmberg decided to do it anyway for peace of mind and to get the admin out of the way. The website looked simple, she tells HS, so she sent in her application. Unfortunately it was rejected and the UK government told her to leave.
She immediately contacted lawyers, who said the removal letter was almost certainly without foundation but difficult to rescind. Her partner contacted the local MP, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and she promised to help.
But despite legal eagles and a prominent politician in her corner, Holmberg remains in limbo. Her advocates are unsure why exactly her application was rejected but suspect it might be to do with her employment situation. Although she works for Queen Mary University in London, her employer is technically Helsinki University--and that might not suffice for UK authorities.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
So it was her fuck up. What a surprise
The best solution would be to let her re-apply w the correct details. Otherwise we could be one academic fellow studying British travel in the 17th century short!
I'd forgotten that Leavers despise experts. With that in mind, she's lucky she's not being subjected to ordeal by fire.
It is a sad indictment of Britain today that our kids have neither the drive nor the work ethic to go into the fields and pick the 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture'
yeah we're better off without her and her foreign "enquiring mind".
I am here as a resource to make people feel better about themselves, you are welcome.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
I was joking. You are virtue signalling. I don't want this lady deported, I was just sure there would be more to it than the initial outrageux indicated.
How we Brexit is down to the elected government of the day, one that I didn't vote for.
This is the core of Leavers' cognitive dissonance. You (not just you) say it's down to the government of the day, but I'm guessing you would cry blue murder if the government of the day said: we're staying in the single market.
You can't have your cake and eat it, no matter what implement it is served upon.
I have said on here, mainly in replies to you, at least half a dozen times, that I would have accepted Cameron's renegotiation as the initial departure strategy. I don't know why you wont believe me. I just wanted us out, and let the rest flow from there, however it may be. I don't have a strong opinion on the deal and wouldn't cry blue murder whatever it was, our job is done.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
That too. The immigrants that are most put off are those that are most marketable and have choices about where they go.
I loved presenting Sunday Politics, it was a privilege and honour to hold the political discourse up to the light for all those years and while I will miss it greatly I am delighted to continue to work for the BBC on This Week, Daily Politics and other projects.
"Gordon Brown is not a popular figure among readers of the Daily Telegraph...Yet to his credit, Brown was also a man of big ideas, an attribute which seems sadly lacking in the mediocrity of today’s political landscape."
I'm puzzled by this comment. What big ideas did Brown have? I can't come up with any.
H
I do agree that no current politician has imagination or vision. But that was true in the 1950s and 1960s as well, or indeed the 1880s and 1890s. The bigger issue is that steady as she goes will hardly cut it now.
He nationalised the banks. This helped resolve the banking crisis, here and in many other countries which followed the basic idea. He managed to persuade the other world leaders (including newly elected Barack Obama) that this was not just a solution, but the only one. He was right, and had he failed to persuade them, the consequences for us alll would have been much more severe,
He was a crap PM, but this one idea stands to his eternal credit. And it certainly qualifies as a big one.
Was it his idea though? How much input did the likes of Darling and Vadera have into it?
True, it worked. But if he had forced the Treasury and the Bank of England to work together effectively in the previous five years on banking regulation, it might not have been necessary or at least not on such a scale.
My post has been criticised from two contradictory viewpoints. You and Cyclefree say the policy was sound, but attribute it to others, notably Darling, and another poster who reckons it was a crap idea anyway.
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
"He didn't resist doing the obvious and necessary thing" isn't perhaps as great a recommendation as you seem to think.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
The peanut in your pocket has not been devalued.
It still buys just as much when spent in the UK (on UK products and services).
I loved presenting Sunday Politics, it was a privilege and honour to hold the political discourse up to the light for all those years and while I will miss it greatly I am delighted to continue to work for the BBC on This Week, Daily Politics and other projects.
I loved presenting Sunday Politics, it was a privilege and honour to hold the political discourse up to the light for all those years and while I will miss it greatly I am delighted to continue to work for the BBC on This Week, Daily Politics and other projects.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
The peanut in your pocket has not been devalued.
It still buys just as much when spent in the UK (on UK products and services).
My post has been criticised from two contradictory viewpoints. You and Cyclefree say the policy was sound, but attribute it to others, notably Darling, and another poster who reckons it was a crap idea anyway.
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
Oh, and I readily concede that Brown's spending policies contributed to the problem, so to some extent he was guilty of encouraging the fire he later helped to put out. He contribution to the conflagration should not be overestimated however. The problem really did start in the USA, and the amount of dodgy debt knocking around at the time was colossal and dwarfed Brown's own profligacy.
(The spivs in London Square Mile are of course not so easily exonerated but that's another story - It's well-documented in Silver's book The Signal and The Noise, if you are interested.)
His conduct post-premiership also looks a lot better than what Tony Blair has been up to.
Brown's spending is a complete red herring. His major failing was light touch bank regulation - he was hardly alone in that - but as a Labour politician he really should have known better.
His major failing was believing his rhetoric about having abolished boom and bust.
His second biggest failing was in bank regulation - not the amount as such, but that he heavily regulated all the wrong things.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
I was joking. You are virtue signalling. I don't want this lady deported, I was just sure there would be more to it than the initial outrageux indicated.
How we Brexit is down to the elected government of the day, one that I didn't vote for.
I am not virtue signalling. The issues are systemic. She is being deported because the UKBA is set up to make life difficult for foreigners
Because that's the only measure of control they have when they have to be open to 300+ million people...
My post has been criticised from two contradictory viewpoints. You and Cyclefree say the policy was sound, but attribute it to others, notably Darling, and another poster who reckons it was a crap idea anyway.
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
Oh, and I readily concede that Brown's spending policies contributed to the problem, so to some extent he was guilty of encouraging the fire he later helped to put out. He contribution to the conflagration should not be overestimated however. The problem really did start in the USA, and the amount of dodgy debt knocking around at the time was colossal and dwarfed Brown's own profligacy.
(The spivs in London Square Mile are of course not so easily exonerated but that's another story - It's well-documented in Silver's book The Signal and The Noise, if you are interested.)
His conduct post-premiership also looks a lot better than what Tony Blair has been up to.
Brown's spending is a complete red herring. His major failing was light touch bank regulation - he was hardly alone in that - but as a Labour politician he really should have known better.
His major failing was believing his rhetoric about having abolished boom and bust.
His second biggest failing was in bank regulation - not the amount as such, but that he heavily regulated all the wrong things.
And that he moved individual Bank regulation from the Bank of England to a new body (The FSA) which was incompetent, ignorant and responsible for the bank crash in the UK.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
That too. The immigrants that are most put off are those that are most marketable and have choices about where they go.
One by one, the brittle positions on Brexit set out by the Prime Minister over the past year are crumbling. No longer does any Cabinet minister repeat her mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”; no more does the Government pretend that European citizens won’t be able to move freely to the UK.
It turns out that Britain’s initial salvos are far from unstoppable when confronted with the immovable objects of the EU’s negotiating discipline and the lack of a parliamentary majority. This is a welcome reality check on the rigid dogma that has infected too much Brexiteer talk and which soured the tone of the negotiations from the start.
We see further evidence of that flexibility today as the Government publishes its ideas on the future judicial oversight of our on-going relationship with our European neighbours once we leave the EU. Back at last year’s Conservative Conference Theresa May claimed that Britain would no longer be subject to “supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts”. Today, her Government confirms that Britain will indeed subject itself to a supranational institution that can override our Parliament and our court in resolving disputes with the EU.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
The peanut in your pocket has not been devalued.
It still buys just as much when spent in the UK (on UK products and services).
Devaluation caused (RPI) inflation to rise from 0-1% to 3-4%/y. Hence butter up from 89p to £1.39 in a year and other slightly less dramatic rises.
"Our ability to offer finance from UK Export Finance in Mexican pesos was a significant benefit to our buyer, helping us win this major contract."
Sounds like vendor financing underwritten by the UK government. Is the government going to get its money back?
It is at the least insuring vendor financing. The government will lose money on the insurance but hopes to make more from the various taxes raised from the extra business generated.
"Gordon Brown is not a popular figure among readers of the Daily Telegraph...Yet to his credit, Brown was also a man of big ideas, an attribute which seems sadly lacking in the mediocrity of today’s political landscape."
I'm puzzled by this comment. What big ideas did Brown have? I can't come up with any.
H
I do agree that no current politician has imagination or vision. But that was true in the 1950s and 1960s as well, or indeed the 1880s and 1890s. The bigger issue is that steady as she goes will hardly cut it now.
He nationalised the banks. This helped resolve the banking crisis, here and in many other countries which followed the basic idea. He managed to persuade the other world leaders (including newly elected Barack Obama) that this was not just a solution, but the only one. He was right, and had he failed to persuade them, the consequences for us alll would have been much more severe,
He was a crap PM, but this one idea stands to his eternal credit. And it certainly qualifies as a big one.
Was it his idea though? How much input did the likes of Darling and Vadera have into it?
True, it worked. But if he had forced the Treasury and the Bank of England to work together effectively in the previous five years on banking regulation, it might not have been necessary or at least not on such a scale.
My post has been criticised from two contradictory viewpoints. You and Cyclefree say the policy was sound, but attribute it to others, notably Darling, and another poster who reckons it was a crap idea anyway.
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
"He didn't resist doing the obvious and necessary thing" isn't perhaps as great a recommendation as you seem to think.
Interesting article Alistair but I'm not sure I agree that hung parliaments will continue to be frequent in the future. One thing you need to take into account is the number of non-Con, non-Lab seats. I've had a look at this:
Year Non C Non L seats % seats 1970 12 1.9% Feb-74 37 5.8% Oct-74 39 6.1% 1979 27 4.3% 1983 44 6.8% 1987 45 6.9% 1992 44 6.8% 1997 76 11.5% 2001 80 12.1% 2005 93 14.4% 2010 86 13.2% 2015 88 13.5% 2017 71 10.9%
Up to 1997 Con and Lab got over 93% of the seats combined so hung parliaments were rare. With the rise of the LDs and then the SNP the combined Con/Lab share has fallen below 90% increasing the window for hung parliaments.
If as some people think the SNP decline further next time then we could easily be back to about 40-50 non-Con/non-Lab seats and with so many close marginals the window between Con maj 1 and Lab maj 1 could easily be very small.
The window will probably (though not definitely) be narrower next time than this. But you also have to look at the marginality of the seats too. If the Conservatives can buck history and do better in their third election after taking power, they might get an overall majority quite easily. But Labour have a lot more work to do, as I note in the article.
To mix metaphors, you need to think about the steepness of the slopes on either side as well as the width of the valley.
I agree that we can't rule out a Con majority next time. We really can't rule out anything considering how unpredictable politics is right now.
And a campaign to recruit GPs from Australia? ROFL! there are 350 fewer GPs than 2015, despite Hunt's promised 5000 recruits.
Lots of undergraduate medical school places in clearing too. Nearly all medical schools unable to fill their courses.
Its almost as if our country is governed by incompetents...
Do you think EU doctors and nurses will leave post-Brexit? There was a poll that suggested 4/10 were considering it... but I think it's a very difficult question to research... in practice many will have family ties etc. here - leaving won't be so easy/tempting.
Surprised courses aren't being filled... My understanding is Hunt has backed down on forcing NHS trained doctors to stay for four years.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
Isn't it simply she made a mistake and the Home Office responded with a "computer says no" mentality. Worthy of criticism, yes, but any connection to Brexit is merely circumstantial
And, tucked in at the end of the article, is the revelation that it's a non-story:
A Home Office spokesman said Dr Holmberg’s letter should not have been sent, adding hers was not the only case.
He said: “A limited number of letters were issued in error and we have been urgently looking into why this happened.
"We are contacting everyone who received this letter to clarify that they can disregard it."
Sorry, Alastair - this is an old-fashioned Home Office screw-up, not an example of Brexit over-enthusiasm.
Actually it isn't. The Home Office screw up can be disregarded because she has rights accorded to her by EU treaty as well as recourse to the courts. After Brexit she won't under UK proposals. This one of the key Article 50 negotiating points.
One by one, the brittle positions on Brexit set out by the Prime Minister over the past year are crumbling. No longer does any Cabinet minister repeat her mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”; no more does the Government pretend that European citizens won’t be able to move freely to the UK.
It turns out that Britain’s initial salvos are far from unstoppable when confronted with the immovable objects of the EU’s negotiating discipline and the lack of a parliamentary majority. This is a welcome reality check on the rigid dogma that has infected too much Brexiteer talk and which soured the tone of the negotiations from the start.
We see further evidence of that flexibility today as the Government publishes its ideas on the future judicial oversight of our on-going relationship with our European neighbours once we leave the EU. Back at last year’s Conservative Conference Theresa May claimed that Britain would no longer be subject to “supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts”. Today, her Government confirms that Britain will indeed subject itself to a supranational institution that can override our Parliament and our court in resolving disputes with the EU.
In the spirit of goodwill, may I ask: don't you think it would be more rigorous on your part not to use sources that are heavily biased to your own opinion? Reposting stories that show George Osborne and The Guardian don't like Brexit isn't really telling us anything, or giving your opinion any more weight
And, tucked in at the end of the article, is the revelation that it's a non-story:
A Home Office spokesman said Dr Holmberg’s letter should not have been sent, adding hers was not the only case.
He said: “A limited number of letters were issued in error and we have been urgently looking into why this happened.
"We are contacting everyone who received this letter to clarify that they can disregard it."
Sorry, Alastair - this is an old-fashioned Home Office screw-up, not an example of Brexit over-enthusiasm.
It's Chapman syndrome. Those obsessively anti-Brexit channel everything they see into such a lens. It was like how someone on here the other day was blaming a fringe rightwing nutcase proposing voluntary repatriation as being down to Brexit. As if that has never happened before 2016. Nick Griffin anyone?
Though the opacity of the decision making is quite telling. No explanation or justification, just a deportation.
My guess - purely a guess, but one which fits the facts - is that it used to be the case that almost no EU citizens applied for leave to remain. Therefore the official dealing with this assumed that failure to be granted the application automatically meant deportation, and didn't notice that she is an EU citizen. Just a straight cock-up, in other words.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
That too. The immigrants that are most put off are those that are most marketable and have choices about where they go.
It is a hard border along some stretches and a soft border along other stretches. Just as the UK-EU border can be a soft border along the stretch with Northern Ireland and a hard border across ports to the continent.
I wonder why the Irish PM didn't visit these bits?
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
Isn't it simply she made a mistake and the Home Office responded with a "computer says no" mentality. Worthy of criticism, yes, but any connection to Brexit is merely circumstantial
I understand that she would be deported except for her absolute and now, thanks to Brexit, time limited right to stay in the UK under EU FoM rules.
And, tucked in at the end of the article, is the revelation that it's a non-story:
A Home Office spokesman said Dr Holmberg’s letter should not have been sent, adding hers was not the only case.
He said: “A limited number of letters were issued in error and we have been urgently looking into why this happened.
"We are contacting everyone who received this letter to clarify that they can disregard it."
Sorry, Alastair - this is an old-fashioned Home Office screw-up, not an example of Brexit over-enthusiasm.
Yes - Home Office screw-up I think. We've had a few of these screw-ups before though - surely it can't be that hard to alter the system so that they do more thorough checks before sending out deportation notices?
Apart from anything else - it generates terrible press. Amber Rudd needs to get a grip.
Doesn't fill me with confidence for the considerable additional workload the Home Office will receive post-Brexit.
If the Irish PM doesn't want a hard border, then he needs to address himself to persuading his EU colleagues of the obvious truth: that they need to get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that will make such a border unnecessary. This really isn't hard to understand, especially since it will be the EU which will be insisting on the border checks.
..."where the dispute concerns EU law", and it could be referred to UK courts where the dispute will concern UK law. Europhiles are deliberately obscuring the truth to play politics. They are pretending moving to the normal functioning of international law between sovereign countries is European courts have special power over the UK. It's not true.
Btw if you try Google translate the Helsingin Sanomat article referred to earlier you'll be totally befuddled because Google translate cannot cope with the lack of a distinction between "he" and "she" in Finnish.
In that case the UKBA is almost certainly acting unlawfully, even if acting according to their procedures. Ms Sanomat has an absolute right to residence under EU FoM rules. After Brexit she would have no guarantees or recourse to the courts under UK proposals even if she nominally had the rights to be here under treaty. These are significant issues.
What we need is a strong advocate of Britain remaining in the EU at the Home Office
You are deflecting. We are brexiting. We can choose to do that in an openminded, competent way or we can do it the way the government is doing it, urged on by certain Leavers. One thing I have learnt since the referendum is that you can get immigration numbers down by being unpleasant to would be immigrants. It isn't "control" in any meaningful sense but if you want to be closed rather than open, it works.
We can also get immigration numbers down by trashing the pound, currently at an 8-year low against the euro aside from the flash crash last October. People aren't going to come if they can only earn peanuts.
That too. The immigrants that are most put off are those that are most marketable and have choices about where they go.
Sorry, Alastair - this is an old-fashioned Home Office screw-up, not an example of Brexit over-enthusiasm.
Sentence First! Verdict afterwards!
Who needs the facts when its a good old bash the proles BREXIT story?
Reading the Finnish lecturers tweets, I think its fair to say she has never been a fan of the current government - which of course is absolutely her right - though it might help explain the alacrity with which her, partial, side of the story has been disseminated....
Yes - Home Office screw-up I think. We've had a few of these screw-ups before though - surely it can't be that hard to alter the system so that they do more thorough checks before sending out deportation notices?
Apart from anything else - it generates terrible press. Amber Rudd needs to get a grip.
Doesn't fill me with confidence for the considerable additional workload the Home Office will receive post-Brexit.
..."where the dispute concerns EU law", and it could be referred to UK courts where the dispute will concern UK law. Europhiles are deliberately obscuring the truth to play politics. They are pretending moving to the normal functioning of international law between sovereign countries is European courts have special power over the UK. It's not true.
If the Irish PM doesn't want a hard border, then he needs to address himself to persuading his EU colleagues of the obvious truth: that they need to get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that will make such a border unnecessary. This really isn't hard to understand, especially since it will be the EU which will be insisting on the border checks.
Does Canada not have a comprehensive trade deal with the US of the kind you are suggesting the EU needs to give us? Yet they still have a hard border.
Clearly this is needs a political solution and it is unrelated to trade discussions. It really isn't hard to understand...
If the Irish PM doesn't want a hard border, then he needs to address himself to persuading his EU colleagues of the obvious truth: that they need to get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that will make such a border unnecessary. This really isn't hard to understand, especially since it will be the EU which will be insisting on the border checks.
Does Canada not have a comprehensive trade deal with the US of the kind you are suggesting the EU needs to give us? Yet they still have a hard border.
Clearly this is needs a political solution and it is unrelated to trade discussions. It really isn't hard to understand...
I think that NAFTA falls a long way short of Customs Union or Single Market.
67. There is no precedent, and indeed no imperative driven by EU, UK or international law, which demands that enforcement or dispute resolution of future UK-EU agreements falls under the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU.
68. The precedents examined in this paper demonstrate that there are a number of additional means by which the EU has entered into agreements which offer assurance of effective enforcement and dispute resolution and, where appropriate, avoidance of divergence, without necessitating the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU over a third party. Such an arrangement, whereby the highest court of one party would act as the means of enforcing or interpreting an agreement between the two parties, would be exceptional in international agreements.
69. The UK will therefore engage constructively to negotiate an approach to enforcement and dispute resolution which meets the key objectives of both the UK and the EU in underpinning the effective operation of a new, deep and special partnership.
If the Irish PM doesn't want a hard border, then he needs to address himself to persuading his EU colleagues of the obvious truth: that they need to get on with agreeing a comprehensive trade deal with the UK that will make such a border unnecessary. This really isn't hard to understand, especially since it will be the EU which will be insisting on the border checks.
Does Canada not have a comprehensive trade deal with the US of the kind you are suggesting the EU needs to give us? Yet they still have a hard border.
Clearly this is needs a political solution and it is unrelated to trade discussions. It really isn't hard to understand...
Of course it need a political solution: the EU27 need to stop this absurd and irrational pretence that anything substantial can be agreed on exit arrangements and the border, without agreeing first on what we are exiting to.
..."where the dispute concerns EU law", and it could be referred to UK courts where the dispute will concern UK law. Europhiles are deliberately obscuring the truth to play politics. They are pretending moving to the normal functioning of international law between sovereign countries is European courts have special power over the UK. It's not true.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Where an agreement has been made in EU law, obviously EU law and EU courts should govern it. Just as agreements and contracts made under American law or Japanese law would be ultimately arbitrated by American and Japanese courts.
Comments
A father of another friend is called George Bush.
Charged over 3 Euros for this
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/763401319457644544
then there was this one, served to a child. A three year old child!
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/733721914355666944
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/894849732165722113
The Tonka Truck had me shaking my head, but this one had me angry, you can't do this to a book.
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/889570334017560576
This on the other hand was not something I needed to see whilst recovering from food poisoning,
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/664927129268838401
Year Non C Non L seats % seats
1970 12 1.9%
Feb-74 37 5.8%
Oct-74 39 6.1%
1979 27 4.3%
1983 44 6.8%
1987 45 6.9%
1992 44 6.8%
1997 76 11.5%
2001 80 12.1%
2005 93 14.4%
2010 86 13.2%
2015 88 13.5%
2017 71 10.9%
Up to 1997 Con and Lab got over 93% of the seats combined so hung parliaments were rare. With the rise of the LDs and then the SNP the combined Con/Lab share has fallen below 90% increasing the window for hung parliaments.
If as some people think the SNP decline further next time then we could easily be back to about 40-50 non-Con/non-Lab seats and with so many close marginals the window between Con maj 1 and Lab maj 1 could easily be very small.
In favour of the dog bowl I am at least happy that the kitchen staff can clean it to an acceptable level of hygiene and is fundamentally a bowl.
This on the other hand was not something I needed to see whilst recovering from food poisoning,
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/664927129268838401
I think we can disregard the latter, but as regards you and Miss C I have to defer, except to the extent that it would have been difficult for the policy to be implemented without the active support of the PM. There's also the well-document accounts of Brown's active role at the G20 Summit which was taking place at the height of the crisis.
Oh, and I readily concede that Brown's spending policies contributed to the problem, so to some extent he was guilty of encouraging the fire he later helped to put out. He contribution to the conflagration should not be overestimated however. The problem really did start in the USA, and the amount of dodgy debt knocking around at the time was colossal and dwarfed Brown's own profligacy.
(The spivs in London Square Mile are of course not so easily exonerated but that's another story - It's well-documented in Silver's book The Signal and The Noise, if you are interested.)
How we Brexit is down to the elected government of the day, one that I didn't vote for.
To mix metaphors, you need to think about the steepness of the slopes on either side as well as the width of the valley.
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
Brown's spending is a complete red herring. His major failing was light touch bank regulation - he was hardly alone in that - but as a Labour politician he really should have known better.
https://twitter.com/WeWantPlates/status/895000426344534016
Really made me laugh.
Clearly the Camden Hell's lager wasn't hipster enough on its own...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/leading-finnish-historian-threatened-with-detention-and-deportation-in-absurd-brexit-ruling-by-home-a3618176.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/23/andrew-neil-steps-down-as-sunday-politics-host
You can't have your cake and eat it, no matter what implement it is served upon.
And the PM has spent the day disavowing it
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/900304010762227712
The plot thickens.
https://twitter.com/tkbeynon/status/900300471746912257
Edit: I've no clue whether this actually is the case, but the analogy ROCKS (where's @kle4 when you need him!).
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/employment/600-overseas-gps-to-be-recruited-for-english-practices-by-april/20035133.article
And a campaign to recruit GPs from Australia? ROFL! there are 350 fewer GPs than 2015, despite Hunt's promised 5000 recruits.
Lots of undergraduate medical school places in clearing too. Nearly all medical schools unable to fill their courses.
Its almost as if our country is governed by incompetents...
It is a sad indictment of Britain today that our kids have neither the drive nor the work ethic to go into the fields and pick the 'Travel and Self-Description in Seventeenth-Century English Culture'
yeah we're better off without her and her foreign "enquiring mind".
Genuine question, who funds her studies here? I presume she does so herself?
The aim is zero tax, zero state, zero regulation.
Burn the state.
It still buys just as much when spent in the UK (on UK products and services).
thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-4219778/New-car-prices-risen-5-cent-Brexit.html
Surely the underlying issue is why Helsinki Uni would pay for this research?
His second biggest failing was in bank regulation - not the amount as such, but that he heavily regulated all the wrong things.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-41011700
"Our ability to offer finance from UK Export Finance in Mexican pesos was a significant benefit to our buyer, helping us win this major contract."
Sounds like vendor financing underwritten by the UK government. Is the government going to get its money back?
It turns out that Britain’s initial salvos are far from unstoppable when confronted with the immovable objects of the EU’s negotiating discipline and the lack of a parliamentary majority. This is a welcome reality check on the rigid dogma that has infected too much Brexiteer talk and which soured the tone of the negotiations from the start.
We see further evidence of that flexibility today as the Government publishes its ideas on the future judicial oversight of our on-going relationship with our European neighbours once we leave the EU. Back at last year’s Conservative Conference Theresa May claimed that Britain would no longer be subject to “supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts”. Today, her Government confirms that Britain will indeed subject itself to a supranational institution that can override our Parliament and our court in resolving disputes with the EU.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-a-brexit-reality-check-on-the-european-court-a3618091.html
2. From a left wing Labour family.
This will inevitably kill off the programme for many as worth watching.
https://twitter.com/campaignforleo/status/900073098032160770
A Home Office spokesman said Dr Holmberg’s letter should not have been sent, adding hers was not the only case.
He said: “A limited number of letters were issued in error and we have been urgently looking into why this happened.
"We are contacting everyone who received this letter to clarify that they can disregard it."
Sorry, Alastair - this is an old-fashioned Home Office screw-up, not an example of Brexit over-enthusiasm.
There was a poll that suggested 4/10 were considering it... but I think it's a very difficult question to research... in practice many will have family ties etc. here - leaving won't be so easy/tempting.
Surprised courses aren't being filled...
My understanding is Hunt has backed down on forcing NHS trained doctors to stay for four years.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-41011888/rotherham-abuse-she-was-raped-by-six-men
I wonder why the Irish PM didn't visit these bits?
https://cdnimg.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/international-borders-6-1__700.jpg?2bbdf3
http://gephardtdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/canada-us-border.jpg
We've had a few of these screw-ups before though - surely it can't be that hard to alter the system so that they do more thorough checks before sending out deportation notices?
Apart from anything else - it generates terrible press. Amber Rudd needs to get a grip.
Doesn't fill me with confidence for the considerable additional workload the Home Office will receive post-Brexit.
Who needs the facts when its a good old bash the proles BREXIT story?
Reading the Finnish lecturers tweets, I think its fair to say she has never been a fan of the current government - which of course is absolutely her right - though it might help explain the alacrity with which her, partial, side of the story has been disseminated....
Clearly this is needs a political solution and it is unrelated to trade discussions. It really isn't hard to understand...
67. There is no precedent, and indeed no imperative driven by EU, UK or international law, which demands that enforcement or dispute resolution of future UK-EU agreements falls under the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU.
68. The precedents examined in this paper demonstrate that there are a number of additional means by which the EU has entered into agreements which offer assurance of effective enforcement and dispute resolution and, where appropriate, avoidance of divergence, without necessitating the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU over a third party. Such an arrangement, whereby the highest court of one party would act as the means of enforcing or interpreting an agreement between the two parties, would be exceptional in international agreements.
69. The UK will therefore engage constructively to negotiate an approach to enforcement and dispute resolution which meets the key objectives of both the UK and the EU in underpinning the effective operation of a new, deep and special partnership.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/639609/Enforcement_and_dispute_resolution.pdf