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've just provided photographic evidence where people can walk across the Canada-US border without a border guard in sight. So much for being "hard".
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.
What the rest of the UK exits to is irrelevant. Northern Ireland must stay in the single market and customs union.
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 t 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 ks.
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.
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.
Much more likely is the wrong computer generated letter was sent
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.
Not a single Leaver on thread has yet come forward to say that they think that people like Dr Holmberg should be permitted (never mind encouraged) to stay in the UK. So in a couple of years time we can look forward to them all enthusiastically cheering the deportation of future Dr Holmbergs.
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've just provided photographic evidence where people can walk across the Canada-US border without a border guard in sight. So much for being "hard".
Border police can and do operate up to 100 miles away from the US Canada Border, and can stop anyone in that zone under border control regulations and laws, require them to prove their immigration status etc.
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.
And if they don't ?
The possibility of a hard Brexit happening because the two sides can't agree on the negotiation process - despite there being common ground on the shape of a prospective deal - is quite significant.
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.
Not a single Leaver on thread has yet come forward to say that they think that people like Dr Holmberg should be permitted (never mind encouraged) to stay in the UK. So in a couple of years time we can look forward to them all enthusiastically cheering the deportation of future Dr Holmbergs.
How would most folk on here know the true facts about Dr Holmberg? Jumping to conclusions is for the ill-informed.
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.
What the rest of the UK exits to is irrelevant. Northern Ireland must stay in the single market and customs union.
Well the DUP hold the balance of power and backed Brexit but want some arrangement on the single market for NI so something may well be worked out
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.
Not a single Leaver on thread has yet come forward to say that they think that people like Dr Holmberg should be permitted (never mind encouraged) to stay in the UK. So in a couple of years time we can look forward to them all enthusiastically cheering the deportation of future Dr Holmbergs.
I thought I would be in your Leaver box? Although I think it would do you good to stop placing people in little categories
..."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.
I'm confused - is Mrs May now being criticised for being too pragmatic, or not pragmatic enough?
You need to understand arch-Europhiles can only comprehend two types of Leaver:
A. "Soft leavers", who accept being in the EU in everything but name, including having full jurisdiction of European courts B. "Hard leavers", who can not tolerate any relationship with foreigners whatsoever, even the normal functioning of international relationships between sovereign states
When the government rejects A they are zealous, racist head bangers. When the government rejects B they are in danger of losing most of their base.
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
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 t 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 ks.
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.
True and a very stupid move by the NHS in keeping the bursary system for so long whilst they were failing to train enough nurses. Of course it was built on the even stupider decision to force degree courses on nurses.
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
She will cling to grim death to the word "indirect". To be fair this does need to be fudged. For practical reasons that we benefit from, it has to be EU law applied according to ECJ judgments. But extraterritorial jurisdictions are a big problem that you can't airily wave away.
I'm confused - is Mrs May now being criticised for being too pragmatic, or not pragmatic enough?
Pragmatic where she should be principled. Inflexible where she should be pragmatic.
Basically rubbish. But you know that.
Thank you for a clear demonstration of the arch-Europhile position. You start from the basis that May is always wrong, and then back out your logic from there. It's Chapman Syndrome all over.
I'm confused - is Mrs May now being criticised for being too pragmatic, or not pragmatic enough?
Possibly someone hopes that in issue number 987, they have finally found a fundamental issue that will stop Brexit happening. Or will it be 988 or 989 or 990..........
The possibility of a hard Brexit happening because the two sides can't agree on the negotiation process - despite there being common ground on the shape of a prospective deal - is quite significant.
I agree, and I continue to invest my pension portfolio accordingly.
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
A national sovereignty where your law, your immigration system and your taxes are subject to foreign decision. Of course.
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.
The home office could (and probably should) be mostly junked.
Use Brexit as an excuse to recruit a thousand or so unsoiled graduates into a new "department for citizens" (or something) - then, once the brexit workload dies down, gradually fold in the most dysfunctional bits of the home office.
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.
Not a single Leaver on thread has yet come forward to say that they think that people like Dr Holmberg should be permitted (never mind encouraged) to stay in the UK. So in a couple of years time we can look forward to them all enthusiastically cheering the deportation of future Dr Holmbergs.
Because it is self-evidently an error, no one has an issue with her staying and we all have better things to do than revalidate our humanity in your eyes?
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
Says that in the last 5 years, UK Export Finance has provided 14 billion in support for UK exports. It also says that they seek to compliment not compete with the private sector and only work when without them exports wouldn't happen.
Sounds to me like they are a tiny minority of international trade?
I'm confused - is Mrs May now being criticised for being too pragmatic, or not pragmatic enough?
Pragmatic where she should be principled. Inflexible where she should be pragmatic. Basically rubbish. But you know that.
Thank you for a clear demonstration of the arch-Europhile position. You start from the basis that May is always wrong, and then back out your logic from there. It's Chapman Syndrome all over.
In fact, Jonathan is quite right, Mrs May is completely out of her depth, so usually gets things wrong. It is a good working hypothesis to start from.
If only she had somebody sensible to give her good advice.
"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?
A huge proportion of international trade from all countries is financed like this
So out of the UK's approximately £550 billion of exports, roughly what 'huge proportion' is financed by the UK government?
Google is your friend
"In the last 5 years UK Export Finance has provided £14bn in support of UK exports". Not a 'huge proportion' in anyone's book, except perhaps yours.
Typing on an iPhone so tedious to amend. But "a huge amount" or "a significant proportion of exports to countries with volatile currencies" would have been more accurate
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
And leaving the EU would somehow give us a veto over this bloc?
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
And leaving the EU would somehow give us a veto over this bloc?
It wouldn't give us a veto. It would just mean we escape their jurisdiction and control.
She will cling to grim death to the word "indirect". To be fair this does need to be fudged. For practical reasons that we benefit from, it has to be EU law applied according to ECJ judgments. But extraterritorial jurisdictions are a big problem that you can't airily wave away.
Jurisdiction is a lot like pregnancy, it's a binary state, the court has it or it doesn't have it.
(In)direct jurisdiction is like being a little bit pregnant.
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.
Not a single Leaver on thread has yet come forward to say that they think that people like Dr Holmberg should be permitted (never mind encouraged) to stay in the UK. So in a couple of years time we can look forward to them all enthusiastically cheering the deportation of future Dr Holmbergs.
If you need the obvious stating then I think Dr Holmberg should be permitted to stay.
I also think water should be permitted to be wet. I also think cancer is bad, the sun rises in the East and night will follow day. Anything else you feel an urgent need to have affirmed?
The home office could (and probably should) be mostly junked.
Use Brexit as an excuse to recruit a thousand or so unsoiled graduates into a new "department for citizens" (or something) - then, once the brexit workload dies down, gradually fold in the most dysfunctional bits of the home office.
The Home Office employs something like 30,000 people. Hiring a thousand new graduates with no experience to replace them would be a total calamity.
In the short term - Brexit is going to mean we need a lot more civil servants.
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 t 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 ks.
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.
True and a very stupid move by the NHS in keeping the bursary system for so long whilst they were failing to train enough nurses. Of course it was built on the even stupider decision to force degree courses on nurses.
Indeed, using the savings from the bursary system to fund extra training places should prove beneficial in the long run
I'm confused - is Mrs May now being criticised for being too pragmatic, or not pragmatic enough?
Pragmatic where she should be principled. Inflexible where she should be pragmatic. Basically rubbish. But you know that.
Thank you for a clear demonstration of the arch-Europhile position. You start from the basis that May is always wrong, and then back out your logic from there. It's Chapman Syndrome all over.
In fact, Jonathan is quite right, Mrs May is completely out of her depth, so usually gets things wrong. It is a good working hypothesis to start from.
If only she had somebody sensible to give her good advice.
Indeed. She is continuing her pre-, mid-, and post-election policy of spouting meaningless slogans to gain tabloid headlines. "No jurisdiction of the ECJ!" is yet another.
Interesting - I don't personally think that's the case, more likely to be genuine incompetence, but it's actually an opinion I've heard from a lot of people in France. Definitely seems to be the prevailing view, that the UK is basically doing all it can to delay negotiations, backtrack on everything, and has no desire to actually brexit.
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
And leaving the EU would somehow give us a veto over this bloc?
It won't, but instead of being outvoted and required to comply with their decisions we can choose if, when and how to engage with them
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
As a member we have a veto
Not under QMV
Which only applies to those issues which we agreed it should apply to, and which we did in our own interests to facilitate the operation of a larger EU which we pushed for.
Losing sleep over being outvoted is usually an accusation levelled at those of us on the Remain side.
She will cling to grim death to the word "indirect". To be fair this does need to be fudged. For practical reasons that we benefit from, it has to be EU law applied according to ECJ judgments. But extraterritorial jurisdictions are a big problem that you can't airily wave away.
Jurisdiction is a lot like pregnancy, it's a binary state, the court has it or it doesn't have it.
(In)direct jurisdiction is like being a little bit pregnant.
I agree. Figleaves are binary too. You either have them or you don't. As a Remainer who basically thinks this is nonsense I am saying there are some naughty bits that need covering up because we do want to keep the bodies.
The only thing more sensible would be if could actually shape those decisions.
Oh...
But the paper is clear that on cases relating to the rights of EU citizens in Britain after Brexit, the UK courts should be the final arbiter, contradicting Brussels’ current position.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
The vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is being a member of the EU.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
And leaving the EU would somehow give us a veto over this bloc?
26 counties of Ireland left the UK in the early 1920's. At the time they had full voting rights and participation in UK decisions on the same basis as Wales or Scotland or Sussex. However, they felt they were getting a rough deal, and preferred, for all the doubts there must have been (like leaving a big customs union), to plough their own furrow.
There was a vote in 1918 (the election) and a majority in the 26 counties (46.9% in Ireland as a whole out of interest, the remaining votes being 25% unionist and 22% Irish Parliamentary Party) voted to exit the UK. In due course, and sadly following much violence in this case, they signed a compromise treaty that gave them effective Dominion Status, and with it defacto, if not 100% de jure, independence. Less than thirty years later they declared a Republic.
Were they wrong to go down this route, or should they have maintained the roughly 11% of seats they had in the decision making process of the UK at the time? I would suggest they had no real veto, they knew it, and decided going their own way was best for them. I imagine the vast majority of their great grand children agree with them.
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 t 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 ks.
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.
Yes everything is fine and dandy in the world of student finance and NHS recruitment and retention.
According to UCAS figures there were 33810 English applicants for Nursing places in England in 2017, down 23% from last year. Only about 16 000 were applicants post A Level.
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
As a member we have a veto
Not under QMV
Which only applies to those issues which we agreed it should apply to, and which we did in our own interests to facilitate the operation of a larger EU which we pushed for.
Losing sleep over being outvoted is usually an accusation levelled at those of us on the Remain side.
Yes, politicians gave those powers away without consulting their masters.
But, to be fair, bloc voting with an inbuilt majority is a relatively new development
Well, having actually read the government's paper, it seems to be very sensible.
I'm reading it with a member of a magic circle firm.
There's a lot of guffawing coming from him.
Someone who only did A Level law was his view of the author.
I feel sorry for the person who wrote it if they had such a miserable adolescence they could only do one a-level, and that the second most pointless and boring one behind General Studies.
Why couldn't they do sensible and interesting subjects like history, philosophy, politics, English and watching paint dry?
My favourite experience with top lawyers: I was involved in a transaction where the other side were represented by one of the magic circle firms. After a long and painful negotiation and legal argy-bargy, we finally closed the deal in the standard manner at about two in the morning, having quibbled over every sentence of the agreement.
As we were walking out to get a taxi, my lawyer said to me: "Well that's good. They didn't notice that you have a subsidiary company. Every single clause they forced you to accept can be side-stepped by doing it through the subsidiary".
Were they wrong to go down this route, or should they have maintained the roughly 11% of seats they had in the decision making process of the UK at the time? I would suggest they had no real veto, they knew it, and decided going their own way was best for them. I imagine the vast majority of their great grand children agree with them.
Indeed. By a vast majority they agree that being a member of the EU and Eurozone is a superior way for a European nation to defend its interests in the modern world than being tied to the last vestige of the British Empire that is the United Kingdom. Let's hope we have the wisdom to learn from their example.
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've just provided photographic evidence where people can walk across the Canada-US border without a border guard in sight. So much for being "hard".
Border police can and do operate up to 100 miles away from the US Canada Border, and can stop anyone in that zone under border control regulations and laws, require them to prove their immigration status etc.
During the Troubles you could walk over almost the entirety of the Irish border. Open border, however, it was not.
My favourite experience with top lawyers: I was involved in a transaction where the other side were represented by one of the magic circle firms. After a long and painful negotiation and legal argy-bargy, we finally closed the deal in the standard manner at about two in the morning, having quibbled over every sentence of the agreement.
As we were walking out to get a taxi, my lawyer said to me: "Well that's good. They didn't notice that you have a subsidiary company. Every single clause they forced you to accept can be side-stepped by doing it through the subsidiary".
That is really quite spectacularly incompetent. Are they now working for the government on UKBA decisions?
Were they wrong to go down this route, or should they have maintained the roughly 11% of seats they had in the decision making process of the UK at the time? I would suggest they had no real veto, they knew it, and decided going their own way was best for them. I imagine the vast majority of their great grand children agree with them.
Indeed. By a vast majority they agree that being a member of the EU and Eurozone is a superior way for a European nation to defend its interests in the modern world than being tied to the last vestige of the British Empire that is the United Kingdom. Let's hope we have the wisdom to learn from their example.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
My favourite experience with top lawyers: I was involved in a transaction where the other side were represented by one of the magic circle firms. After a long and painful negotiation and legal argy-bargy, we finally closed the deal in the standard manner at about two in the morning, having quibbled over every sentence of the agreement.
As we were walking out to get a taxi, my lawyer said to me: "Well that's good. They didn't notice that you have a subsidiary company. Every single clause they forced you to accept can be side-stepped by doing it through the subsidiary".
That is really quite spectacularly incompetent. Are they now working for the government on UKBA decisions?
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Wasn't the Confederacy more to do with taxes?
No.
The American Civil War was to do with the free movement of people.
Interesting - I don't personally think that's the case, more likely to be genuine incompetence, but it's actually an opinion I've heard from a lot of people in France. Definitely seems to be the prevailing view, that the UK is basically doing all it can to delay negotiations, backtrack on everything, and has no desire to actually brexit.
Why has Macron become so unpopular so quickly in France ?
Please explain how block voting by Eurozone countries plus no UK veto is in our interest?
As a member we have a veto
Not under QMV
QMV was something that we promoted within the EU as part of the single market.
Pre bloc voting. I won't criticise people for not anticipating how that has developed. But when the situation changes you need to assess whether the current arrangements still work.
In this case they didn't - if there had been a reform to introduce double majorities (Eurozone and non-Eurozone) it could have been solved. In fact most of the issues with the EU could have been relatively easily fixed but because of Cameron's incompetence and the EU's inflexibility we have ended up leaving.
She will cling to grim death to the word "indirect". To be fair this does need to be fudged. For practical reasons that we benefit from, it has to be EU law applied according to ECJ judgments. But extraterritorial jurisdictions are a big problem that you can't airily wave away.
Jurisdiction is a lot like pregnancy, it's a binary state, the court has it or it doesn't have it.
(In)direct jurisdiction is like being a little bit pregnant.
That's not true at all. Indirect will have relevance in a tiny fraction of cases that direct does. Right now the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter on the vast bulk of UK law. An indirect influence situation after Brexit will be the tiny minority of cases where the contract/agreement was written under EU law. Indirect is far closer to no jurisdiction than it is to direct jurisdiction.
@CornishJohn - You may be interested in a group affiliated to the Gates Foundation's comments on African tariffs here. They were indeed concerned about tariff barriers - those placed on imports of anti-malarial drugs which they were pressuring African governments to remove.
She will cling to grim death to the word "indirect". To be fair this does need to be fudged. For practical reasons that we benefit from, it has to be EU law applied according to ECJ judgments. But extraterritorial jurisdictions are a big problem that you can't airily wave away.
Jurisdiction is a lot like pregnancy, it's a binary state, the court has it or it doesn't have it.
(In)direct jurisdiction is like being a little bit pregnant.
That's not true at all. Indirect will have relevance in a tiny fraction of cases that direct does. Right now the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter on the vast bulk of UK law. An indirect influence situation after Brexit will be the tiny minority of cases where the contract/agreement was written under EU law. Indirect is far closer to no jurisdiction than it is to direct jurisdiction.
But the term used by government spinners this morning was direct jurisdiction.
Indeed. If supporting and practising slavery is to put historical figures beyond the pale, then what about this Mohammed fellow, eh? How appalling for people to look to him as some sort of exemplar. And what about Napoleon? He reintroduced slavery after the French revolution abolished it. And those ancient Greeks: very naughty indeed.
Though not an awful lot of statues of Mohammed to pull down.
But his life is seen as one to emulate. If it's wrong to revere General Lee because of his role in the Confederacy whose reason for existing was slavery, why shouldn't the same be said of Mohammed who also had an equally repellent approach to slavery?
Wasn't the Confederacy more to do with taxes?
No.
The American Civil War was to do with the free movement of people.
Actually I would have said it was to ensure the non-movement of non-free people.
Interestingly however their constitution did ban African immigration!
Why is it everytime the government releases a paper on our exit from the EU Remainers pretend that there's some major climbdown or disaster going on?
Because they start from the position that the government is wrong on everything. It was said by one further down. Where the government is classed as 'pragmatic' in their dichotomy, it's a climbdown that is no different to the current situation. Where the government is classed as 'purist' in the dichotomy, it's headbangers drawing up the drawbridge.
It's important to note that not all Remainers are like this. I often disagree with Richard Nabavi for example, but he is not a zealot on the matter, he is thoughtful and forms an independent view.
“I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.
“I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government.”
"[...] I think those that do want to revisit it should just pause for a few years and shelve it.”
@CornishJohn - You may be interested in a group affiliated to the Gates Foundation's comments on African tariffs here. They were indeed concerned about tariff barriers - those placed on imports of anti-malarial drugs which they were pressuring African governments to remove.
Comments
How pragmatic is that on your scale?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878312/80-000-UK-students-told-t-train-nurse-Thousands-t-courses-despite-four-five-new-NHS-workers-foreign.html
@mckinneytweets: That looks like a concession. Let's see whether enough for the EU (or too much for Brexiter die-hards)
The possibility of a hard Brexit happening because the two sides can't agree on the negotiation process - despite there being common ground on the shape of a prospective deal - is quite significant.
Inflexible where she should be pragmatic.
Basically rubbish. But you know that.
A. "Soft leavers", who accept being in the EU in everything but name, including having full jurisdiction of European courts
B. "Hard leavers", who can not tolerate any relationship with foreigners whatsoever, even the normal functioning of international relationships between sovereign states
When the government rejects A they are zealous, racist head bangers. When the government rejects B they are in danger of losing most of their base.
The reality that the government, most Conservative MPs and most Leave voters sit in the vast middle ground that combines national sovereignty with close and healthy co-operation is something their ideology can not comprehend.
And the Brexiteers couldn't get their head round that
Use Brexit as an excuse to recruit a thousand or so unsoiled graduates into a new "department for citizens" (or something) - then, once the brexit workload dies down, gradually fold in the most dysfunctional bits of the home office.
HMG statement on Brexit
Says that in the last 5 years, UK Export Finance has provided 14 billion in support for UK exports. It also says that they seek to compliment not compete with the private sector and only work when without them exports wouldn't happen.
Sounds to me like they are a tiny minority of international trade?
If only she had somebody sensible to give her good advice.
http://www.viking-direct.co.uk/a/pb/Office-Depot-Midway-Correction-Roller-42mm-x-85m/id=6093090&pr=Q28/
(In)direct jurisdiction is like being a little bit pregnant.
You seem to have solved your blocking problem. Just don't read any posts.
Sack up.
I also think water should be permitted to be wet. I also think cancer is bad, the sun rises in the East and night will follow day. Anything else you feel an urgent need to have affirmed?
Anyway, I'm breaking my own rule about debating with Europhile zealots, so let's move on.
Hiring a thousand new graduates with no experience to replace them would be a total calamity.
In the short term - Brexit is going to mean we need a lot more civil servants.
The only thing more sensible would be if could actually shape those decisions.
Oh...
There's a lot of guffawing coming from him.
Someone who only did A Level law was his view of the author.
Losing sleep over being outvoted is usually an accusation levelled at those of us on the Remain side.
You'll be thinking for yourself next!
You still haven't read it then?
There was a vote in 1918 (the election) and a majority in the 26 counties (46.9% in Ireland as a whole out of interest, the remaining votes being 25% unionist and 22% Irish Parliamentary Party) voted to exit the UK. In due course, and sadly following much violence in this case, they signed a compromise treaty that gave them effective Dominion Status, and with it defacto, if not 100% de jure, independence. Less than thirty years later they declared a Republic.
Were they wrong to go down this route, or should they have maintained the roughly 11% of seats they had in the decision making process of the UK at the time? I would suggest they had no real veto, they knew it, and decided going their own way was best for them. I imagine the vast majority of their great grand children agree with them.
According to UCAS figures there were 33810 English applicants for Nursing places in England in 2017, down 23% from last year. Only about 16 000 were applicants post A Level.
https://www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/2017-cycle-applicant-figures-–-january-deadline
Figures for other professions allied to medicine are similarly down (physios etc).
But, to be fair, bloc voting with an inbuilt majority is a relatively new development
Why couldn't they do sensible and interesting subjects like history, philosophy, politics, English and watching paint dry?
As we were walking out to get a taxi, my lawyer said to me: "Well that's good. They didn't notice that you have a subsidiary company. Every single clause they forced you to accept can be side-stepped by doing it through the subsidiary".
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Joo_Janta_200_Super-Chromatic_Peril_Sensitive_Sunglasses
In this case they didn't - if there had been a reform to introduce double majorities (Eurozone and non-Eurozone) it could have been solved. In fact most of the issues with the EU could have been relatively easily fixed but because of Cameron's incompetence and the EU's inflexibility we have ended up leaving.
http://alma2030.org/sites/default/files/head_of_state_meeting/mtap_-_tariff_and_ntb_fact_sheet.pdf
Interestingly however their constitution did ban African immigration!
It's important to note that not all Remainers are like this. I often disagree with Richard Nabavi for example, but he is not a zealot on the matter, he is thoughtful and forms an independent view.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/23/andrew-neil-does-bit-gender-pay-gap-stepping-sunday-politics/
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/house/75976/dominic-raab-remain-are-getting-jittery-–-were-winning-debate
“I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.
“I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government.”
"[...] I think those that do want to revisit it should just pause for a few years and shelve it.”