I had a (20W?) lightbulb moment reading the piece in die Welt below. It's worth persevering with Google Translate. The author asks why the government hasn't done a single thing to prepare the country for Brexit and thinks it isn't serious about Brexit. I would say more indecision than a plan but it comes to the same thing. There is plenty of argument in the UK about Brexit but very little discussion about how to achieve it.
I realised for the first time that there is a consensus of sorts in the UK about Brexit. Both Remainers and Leavers want Brexit to change things as little as possible. In the Remainers' case it's about damage limitation. In the Leavers' case it is an expectation that nothing important will change after Brexit - the absence of a Project Fear essentially. Patrick Minford's wildly misinformed report that Britain will be £135 billion better off after Brexit is predicated on us continuing to trade on exactly the same terms after Brexit as now.
I have always thought Leavers were making a mistake in thinking there would be no real change with Brexit but missed the much more important point that they don't actually want there to be change. They may talk, as Professor Minford does, of opportunities but virtually no-one is prepared to take responsibility for effecting change. Certainly none of the politicians are. I expect the job to end up with the civil servants who, in the absence of a steer from politicians, will aim not to rock the boat. The recent flurry of "position papers" are civil servants at their finest, articulating fluently about nothing much at all.
For the first time I am more concerned about the EU negotiators than the UK ones. We are waiting for them to tell us what's what - we are not going to do it ourselves - and therefore rely on the kindness of those we have estranged. I hope they are tolerant of our stupidity, give us our figleaves of control - our indirect jurisdictions, our new and special relationships - and don't screw us over just because they can. The UK is worth keeping in the EU camp.
@paulwaugh: Boris Johnson changes tack on @BBCr4today re Brexit bill “Of course we will meet our obligations, we are law-abiding, bill-paying people”
If the Brexiteers in cabinet are finally starting to wake up to the realities, how long will it take the diehard fantasists here to catch up?
Your retweet includes the word "obligations". That has never been in doubt. There seems to be discussion about what those obligations actually are - which is a completely different thing.
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right to leave the UK for whatever amount of time - to care for an elderly relative, to take up a new job - and to return to resume their lives here. Under the UK government's proposals they would lose this right. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
Because that is the basis on which they have built their lives in the UK.
And they should have superior rights to UK citizens too?
Nope. Parity is absolutely reasonable and would be seen as such within the context of a wider deal.
So the UK Supreme Court to adjudicate on UK citizens in the EU?
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right toht. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
Because that is the basis on which they have built their lives in the UK.
Then they can become permanent residents in the UK. They lose no rights as EU citizens by doing so.
Yes, they do. Unlike UK citizens, they lose their residency rights if they leave the UK for an extended period of time.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
Rights that continued as long as the UK was a member of the EU, and engaged in freedom of movement?
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right to leave the UK for whatever amount of time - to care for an elderly relative, to take up a new job - and to return to resume their lives here. Under the UK government's proposals they would lose this right. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
Because that is the basis on which they have built their lives in the UK.
And they should have superior rights to UK citizens too?
Nope. Parity is absolutely reasonable and would be seen as such within the context of a wider deal.
So the UK Supreme Court to adjudicate on UK citizens in the EU?
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
He wouldn't bother. It's not in his nature.
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they don't. Our courts can deal with that.
Our courts will apply UK law. What the EU27 are after are guarantees that UK law will not be changed post-agreement to the detriment of their citizens.
That is not a guarantee we should give. A future government may very well pass laws that conflict with current EU law.
And therein lies the problem. If the UK is not prepared to compromise on that there will be no deal.
If so, there will be no deal. How could we guarantee that, for example, we would never change our laws on employment or the environment?
We are happy to submit to international rules and the decisions of international institutions on a variety of issues. We can do the same with EU citizens rights. Giving them the same rights as UK (or Irish) citizens and agreeing to have these guaranteed by a court/tribunal composed of UK and EU judges - which will also guarantee British citizens' rights in the EU - does not seem unreasonable to me.
The implication is that our judges can't be trusted to make honest judgements. I think that's unreasonable.
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the righte a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
Because that is the basis on which they have built their lives in the UK.
And they should have superior rights to UK citizens too?
Nope. Parity is absolutely reasonable and would be seen as such within the context of a wider deal.
So the UK Supreme Court to adjudicate on UK citizens in the EU?
Nope a supranational body to oversee both.
A shame that isn't what the EU is proposing.
We're the ones leaving. It's our job to drive the discussions and find the solutions to obstacles to getting a deal done. After all, we're the biggest losers if there isn't one.
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
He wouldn't bother. It's not in his nature.
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
We're the ones leaving. It's our job to drive the discussions and find the solutions to obstacles to getting a deal done. After all, we're the biggest losers if there isn't one.
Hasn't the UK been pushing for a non-ECJ option? I think they have!
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
He wouldn't bother. It's not in his nature.
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
He wouldn't bother. It's not in his nature.
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
So the ECJ gets rights to adjudicate for years into the future on EU citizen (let's say), and I'm an employer in a small organisation with a couple of equally qualified candidates in front of me, one solely British, one EU.
Do I pick the British one or the EU one and risk getting myself entangled with some foreign court? You can bet your bottom dollar some chippy lawyer would crawl out from the bottom of the pond trying to make a name for themselves on this.
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
No one comes out of Traingate looking particularly good. Corbyn's team were initially disorganised in their messaging. The Guardian acknowledges that it made errors in its reporting. And as the Double Down video highlights, much of the wider media should have been more sceptical, rather than following an anti-Corbyn narrative. The saga also didn't look great for Virgin – not just because of a crowded train, but also because Branson's intervention looked like a billionaire meddling in politics.
But for Double Down to present its footage as proof of a conspiracy to smear Corbyn is a little awkward, when it has heavily spun its own story. When calling for less cosiness in the media, it would also help to mention that one of its directors was a key player in the whole affair.
We're the ones leaving. It's our job to drive the discussions and find the solutions to obstacles to getting a deal done. After all, we're the biggest losers if there isn't one.
Hasn't the UK been pushing for a non-ECJ option? I think they have!
It's submitted a lot of general ideas, but made no specific proposals.
Mr. Owl, it's a bit like SMEs being reluctant to hire women because of the maternity leave. It's not that they ask the question (it's not allowed in law) they're just more female-averse (well, of child-bearing age) to try and avoid the potentially enormous hassle.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
Yes I'm off later to remove Cardiff castle block by block. Bloody Italians and their Roman sub fortlet, and then no sooner had that symbol of oppression mostly gone and along came the bleeding Norman French with their stone keeps... oppressed I am.
Just not sure B and Q sell the size of chisel I have in mind.
Mr. Owl, it's a bit like SMEs being reluctant to hire women because of the maternity leave. It's not that they ask the question (it's not allowed in law) they're just more female-averse (well, of child-bearing age) to try and avoid the potentially enormous hassle.
That's exactly right. I certainly hire based on criteria and prejudices and instincts that I'm definitely not allowed to discuss in an interview.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
You must have been larging it last night to be up at that time sis. Nice drills.
Binning off the EU is too much of an agg. Was a naughty idea but no one really wants out now. Two fingers up to the politicos but now we move on. Tracy May should do one.
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
He wouldn't bother. It's not in his nature.
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Changed our minds. No government can bind its successor. Thought better of it. Decided it wasn't a good idea any more. Buggers up the planning statistics. It's a manifesto commitment. It's Friday.
Pick a reason and shuffle the pack. You can't pick the laws you like to stay in aspic and the ones you don't like are the only ones up for discussion.
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
He wouldn't bother. It's not in his nature.
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
What part of the article was rubbish? I thin the claim that the footage is somehow new or 'leaked' is rubbish.
Mr. Owl, it's a bit like SMEs being reluctant to hire women because of the maternity leave. It's not that they ask the question (it's not allowed in law) they're just more female-averse (well, of child-bearing age) to try and avoid the potentially enormous hassle.
That's exactly right. I certainly hire based on criteria and prejudices and instincts that I'm definitely not allowed to discuss in an interview.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Changed our minds. No government can bind its successor. Thought better of it. Decided it wasn't a good idea any more. Buggers up the planning statistics. It's a manifesto commitment. It's Friday.
Pick a reason and shuffle the pack. You can't pick the laws you like to stay in aspic and the ones you don't like are the only ones up for discussion.
Of course you can. We can't unilaterally change our criminal law to reintroduce death by hanging, for example. It would be a long process. Much harder than increasing the fines payable by those caught speeding.
Mr. Owl, it's a bit like SMEs being reluctant to hire women because of the maternity leave. It's not that they ask the question (it's not allowed in law) they're just more female-averse (well, of child-bearing age) to try and avoid the potentially enormous hassle.
That's exactly right. I certainly hire based on criteria and prejudices and instincts that I'm definitely not allowed to discuss in an interview.
One can readily imagine...
Geoff starts his interviews with a test on the Treaty of Utrecht...
Yes I'm off later to remove Cardiff castle block by block. Bloody Italians and their Roman sub fortlet, and then no sooner had that symbol of oppression mostly gone and along came the bleeding Norman French with their stone keeps... oppressed I am.
Just not sure B and Q sell the size of chisel I have in mind.
You're doing this all wrong. Hold my beer.
The oppressor should also foot the removal bill and compensate you for generations of hurt feelings too. You haven't thought out the compo claim - concealed behind a distracting demand for a full apology from public figures who were never involved.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Changed our minds. No government can bind its successor. Thought better of it. Decided it wasn't a good idea any more. Buggers up the planning statistics. It's a manifesto commitment. It's Friday.
Pick a reason and shuffle the pack. You can't pick the laws you like to stay in aspic and the ones you don't like are the only ones up for discussion.
Of course you can. We can't unilaterally change our criminal law to reintroduce death by hanging, for example. It would be a long process. Much harder than increasing the fines payable by those caught speeding.
A two year process sounds about right for that kind of decision, much like A50.
Mr. B, Mr. M isn't the only chap who bears that sort of thing in mind.
Maternity leave can be very difficult for a small company to bear. The generous terms and pay may've gotten good headlines, but the reality is that if a small business owner with perhaps 3-5 employees has the choice between someone with a realistic chance of taking months off on pay, or someone much less likely (whether male or just an older woman), many will go for the latter.
Unintended consequences are something that politicians don't consider enough.
The reason the EU is doing this is perfectly simple: they want to ensure (and ensure is the right word) that the UK gets a much worse deal out, than in.
What they mean by that is this: compelling the UK to accept almost all the same obligations for a deal, but with no say in either making the rules, or adjudicating on them.
The way they will treat the UK (as an ex-EU member) is notably different from other nations to which they've struck deals, that have never been.
I don't think this is correct. As with any membership organisation the EU has to ensure membership has more benefits than non-membership. At the end of the Article 50 process our membership lapses along with all the benefits. The questions are how many benefits get added back in, how quickly and what are our obligations? If we were any other third country there would be a decade or so of hard negotiation and eventually a deal may be agreed. It will be a much lesser deal than EU membership of the kind we enjoy until 2019.
The UK is different because, uniquely, it is leaving the bloc and because it wants continuity.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
Mr. M, nonsense. There is F1 to discuss, where everything is lovely.
Well. Unless you have a Honda engine. Then all is bleak. The sky is dark. Cold rain falls without cease. Icy teeth of a frigid gale bite deep into the soul. Where are we sleeping tonight, mother? Father's grave?
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
What part of the article was rubbish? I thin the claim that the footage is somehow new or 'leaked' is rubbish.
BBC website describes it as 'new'. I've never seen that footage before, I've seen previous clips which don't show Branson's claim being a lie. Have ypu seen the bits with people sitting on the floor and the kuds in te seats Branson claimed were empty? The article is trying to make an equivalence between Virgin selecting particular frames of their footage for release to falsely claim Corbyn was lying, a story all the major news outlets ran with, with whatever it is Cornyn's team have supposed to have 'spun' which isn't exactly clear.
This isn't 'everybody comes out bad let's move on'. Corbyn was hammered for weeks in the press and on tv during an election campaign on the basis he lied, due to Virgin's intervention - which the footage shows was a lie.
If that footage isn't new completely, the important bits seem to be. It's certainly new to me.
Edit: sorry for typos and shite phrasing, on phone
Might be the only way to get it in the news to even a fraction of the extent that Branson's bullshit was originally. People were still slagging him off over it in the run up to the general election, made him a laughing stock.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
What part of the article was rubbish? I thin the claim that the footage is somehow new or 'leaked' is rubbish.
BBC website describes it as 'new'. I've never seen that footage before, I've seen previous clips which don't show Branson's claim being a lie. Have ypu seen the bits with people sitting on the floor and the kuds in te seats Branson claimed were empty? The article is trying to make an equivalence between Virgin selecting particular frames of their footage for release to falsely claim Corbyn was lying, a story all the major news outlets ran with, with whatever it is Cornyn's team have supposed to have 'spun' which isn't exactly clear.
This isn't 'everybody comes out bad let's move on'. Corbyn was hammered for weeks in the press and on tv during an election campaign on the basis he lied, due to Virgin's intervention - which the footage shows was a lie.
If that footage isn't new completely, the important bits seem to be. It's certainly new to me.
Check the date on the BBC website. It was published in 2016.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
What part of the article was rubbish? I thin the claim that the footage is somehow new or 'leaked' is rubbish.
BBC website describes it as 'new'. I've never seen that footage before, I've seen previous clips which don't show Branson's claim being a lie. Have ypu seen the bits with people sitting on the floor and the kuds in te seats Branson claimed were empty? The article is trying to make an equivalence between Virgin selecting particular frames of their footage for release to falsely claim Corbyn was lying, a story all the major news outlets ran with, with whatever it is Cornyn's team have supposed to have 'spun' which isn't exactly clear.
This isn't 'everybody comes out bad let's move on'. Corbyn was hammered for weeks in the press and on tv during an election campaign on the basis he lied, due to Virgin's intervention - which the footage shows was a lie.
If that footage isn't new completely, the important bits seem to be. It's certainly new to me.
Check the date on the BBC website. It was published in 2016.
That shows 2017 to me. Which is tbe one you mean, does it show the people sat on the floor and the children in the seats Branson tweeted as 'empty and unreserved'?
Mr. Owl, it's a bit like SMEs being reluctant to hire women because of the maternity leave. It's not that they ask the question (it's not allowed in law) they're just more female-averse (well, of child-bearing age) to try and avoid the potentially enormous hassle.
That's exactly right. I certainly hire based on criteria and prejudices and instincts that I'm definitely not allowed to discuss in an interview.
You should respect the sovereignty of our parliament's laws on discrimination.
This is why people need protections by trade unions and courts.
On citizen rights, we can do what we want. Ultimately the EU will have to accept that. The UK proposals are not generous. They don't offer EU citizens any rights or guarantees of the kind they and British citizens enjoy now. EU citizens who have lived in the UK for decades will have fewer rights than Irish citizens who have never been to the UK, which doesn't seem right. It's also an area where we could build up good will rather than bad will with our EU neighbours - we will be needing it. At the end of the day, it's our choice.
Yes I'm off later to remove Cardiff castle block by block. Bloody Italians and their Roman sub fortlet, and then no sooner had that symbol of oppression mostly gone and along came the bleeding Norman French with their stone keeps... oppressed I am.
Just not sure B and Q sell the size of chisel I have in mind.
You're doing this all wrong. Hold my beer.
The oppressor should also foot the removal bill and compensate you for generations of hurt feelings too. You haven't thought out the compo claim - concealed behind a distracting demand for a full apology from public figures who were never involved.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
What part of the article was rubbish? I thin the claim that the footage is somehow new or 'leaked' is rubbish.
BBC website describes it as 'new'. I've never seen that footage before, I've seen previous clips which don't show Branson's claim being a lie. Have ypu seen the bits with people sitting on the floor and the kuds in te seats Branson claimed were empty? The article is trying to make an equivalence between Virgin selecting particular frames of their footage for release to falsely claim Corbyn was lying, a story all the major news outlets ran with, with whatever it is Cornyn's team have supposed to have 'spun' which isn't exactly clear.
This isn't 'everybody comes out bad let's move on'. Corbyn was hammered for weeks in the press and on tv during an election campaign on the basis he lied, due to Virgin's intervention - which the footage shows was a lie.
If that footage isn't new completely, the important bits seem to be. It's certainly new to me.
Check the date on the BBC website. It was published in 2016.
That shows 2017 to me. Which is tbe one you mean, does it show the people sat on the floor and the children in the seats Branson tweeted as 'empty and unreserved'?
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made their decisions based on existing rules. New rules should not be forced on them retrospectively. However, if the UK government wishes to fight its no surrender battle on that turf it will do so. I am not sure that voters would back a No Deal scenario and all the long-term economic hardship that will cause centred on an insistence that British citizens should enjoy fewer rights than they do now.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made their decisions based on existing rules. New rules should not be forced on them retrospectively. However, if the UK government wishes to fight its no surrender battle on that turf it will do so. I am not sure that voters would back a No Deal scenario and all the long-term economic hardship that will cause centred on an insistence that British citizens should enjoy fewer rights than they do now.
You're essentially arguing that in this respect, Britain had given up its sovereignty and should have no right to change the rules.
Hasn't this story been debunked, and the footage that was claimed to be new is actually on the BBC website from last year?
If it is I didn't see it. I remember them releasing some footage but not all the people sitting in aisles or the empty seats being actually full of kids.
Such rubbish. That photo with all the empty seats was pushed around for weeks. The papers (New Statesman with them as an Owen Smith supporter) with them. If they had that footage then surely it's a travesty that they felt able to push on with the 'Corbyn lied' line regardless. There is no equivalence with whatever 'spinning' Corbyn's team is supposed to have. That this media company is led by a Corbynista - I'd have assumed that anyway. Highlights the fact nobody else was saying it - especially crap if they did have all this footage of people sitting on the floor and kids peeping out from seats Branson claimed were empty and unreserved.
What part of the article was rubbish? I thin the claim that the footage is somehow new or 'leaked' is rubbish.
BBC website describes it as 'new'. I've never seen that footage before, I've seen previous clips which don't show Branson's claim being a lie. Have ypu seen the bits with people sitting on the floor and the kuds in te seats Branson claimed were empty? The article is trying to make an equivalence between Virgin selecting particular frames of their footage for release to falsely claim Corbyn was lying, a story all the major news outlets ran with, with whatever it is Cornyn's team have supposed to have 'spun' which isn't exactly clear.
This isn't 'everybody comes out bad let's move on'. Corbyn was hammered for weeks in the press and on tv during an election campaign on the basis he lied, due to Virgin's intervention - which the footage shows was a lie.
If that footage isn't new completely, the important bits seem to be. It's certainly new to me.
Check the date on the BBC website. It was published in 2016.
That shows 2017 to me. Which is tbe one you mean, does it show the people sat on the floor and the children in the seats Branson tweeted as 'empty and unreserved'?
Mr. Owl, it's a bit like SMEs being reluctant to hire women because of the maternity leave. It's not that they ask the question (it's not allowed in law) they're just more female-averse (well, of child-bearing age) to try and avoid the potentially enormous hassle.
That's exactly right. I certainly hire based on criteria and prejudices and instincts that I'm definitely not allowed to discuss in an interview.
You should respect the sovereignty of our parliament's laws on discrimination.
This is why people need protections by trade unions and courts.
I obey the law that says I cannot ask certain questions despite the fact that I disagree with it.
I'd support any candidate who proposed allowing me to decide openly and honestly who I employed to work for me in a company that I own. But that isn't the situation right now and therefore I follow the current law.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right toht. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
Because that is the basis on which they have built their lives in the UK.
Then they can become permanent residents in the UK. They lose no rights as EU citizens by doing so.
Yes, they do. Unlike UK citizens, they lose their residency rights if they leave the UK for an extended period of time.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
I think there needs to be a differentiation between EU citizens living now in the UK and others.
I agree that we should give leave to remain to any EU citizen in the UK already, but after we leave we shouldn’t treat citizens of EU countries any different from how we treat Americans, Indians or Ukrainians when it comes to living and working in the UK.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made their decisions based on existing rules. New rules should not be forced on them retrospectively. However, if the UK government wishes to fight its no surrender battle on that turf it will do so. I am not sure that voters would back a No Deal scenario and all the long-term economic hardship that will cause centred on an insistence that British citizens should enjoy fewer rights than they do now.
You're essentially arguing that in this respect, Britain had given up its sovereignty and should have no right to change the rules.
No, I'm arguing that if we want a deal we will have to find a compromise that the EU will accept and that this is not an issue that is worth risking a No Deal over.
The UK is different because, uniquely, it is leaving the bloc and because it wants continuity.
Really? The whole point of voting Leave was to *not* have continuity!
I'm not sure what the point of voting Leave was given that most Leavers do want continuity and are doing nothing to effect change nor do they accept the consequences of change. Casino only has this complaint against the EU because he wants continuity.
What will be will be. It isn't for us to decide the deal w the EU, it's for the government of the day, and the only time we get to have a say on it is on future election days.
The people looking to argue over every nanosecond of the negotiations are just those who can't accept defeat, and are trying to keep a secondary argument going to try and get a win out of it. Unfortunately for PB they are thread writers, editors, site owners and prolific tweet pasters. But we don't have to read it if we don't want to.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made their decisions based on existing rules. New rules should not be forced on them retrospectively. However, if the UK government wishes to fight its no surrender battle on that turf it will do so. I am not sure that voters would back a No Deal scenario and all the long-term economic hardship that will cause centred on an insistence that British citizens should enjoy fewer rights than they do now.
You're essentially arguing that in this respect, Britain had given up its sovereignty and should have no right to change the rules.
No, I'm arguing that if we want a deal we will have to find a compromise that the EU will accept and that this is not an issue that is worth risking a No Deal over.
I disagree, I think what we've put forward is entirely reasonable. If the EU doesn't like it then no deal it will be.
On citizen rights, we can do what we want. Ultimately the EU will have to accept that. The UK proposals are not generous. They don't offer EU citizens any rights or guarantees of the kind they and British citizens enjoy now. EU citizens who have lived in the UK for decades will have fewer rights than Irish citizens who have never been to the UK, which doesn't seem right. It's also an area where we could build up good will rather than bad will with our EU neighbours - we will be needing it. At the end of the day, it's our choice.
Absolutely. If the government wants to stymie a deal because it effectively wants to ensure that UK citizens have fewer rights than they do now, it can. I am not sure voters will back such a move. But who knows.
The comments are pretty sobering. Someone mentioned Victoria Coren-Mitchell's rant in last weekend's observer, which I hadn't read before. It's a powerful piece;
I'm left wondering whether - maybe - the best/simplest/least authoritarian solution would be to just ban the zero on these roulette games? The bookies would most likely ditch FOBT's voluntarily if we legislated away their edge.
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made their decisions based on existing rules. New rules should not be forced on them retrospectively. However, if the UK government wishes to fight its no surrender battle on that turf it will do so. I am not sure that voters would back a No Deal scenario and all the long-term economic hardship that will cause centred on an insistence that British citizens should enjoy fewer rights than they do now.
I don't really want to get involved in this but just thought of an example regarding changes to rules and regs.
AIUI, people went to Spain and bought property expecting a certain level of regulatory oversight and taxes. These were changed and these people are now facing a much harder time. Is that fair?
Life changes and we need to change with it. If I moved to a country and was happy for a number of years then there were cahnges I didn't like I could always vote with my feet. I did this when I was working in Italy about 25 years ago, loved it for the first couple of years but the beaurocracy got me down and I left.
The EU average unemployment rate for the young of 17% is bad but would have been worse without the UK pulling down the average through our lower rate of 12% and providing jobs for many young from the EU27. Once we exit, the average rate for the EU27 will REMAIN high and we should expect a Leaver such as the UK to fall under 10%.
Those in the Euro get the dubious "benefit" of 2% more unemployed young.
Despite all the hype and hoopla there is no reason why Floyd couldn't or wouldn't knock out Conor at a time of his choosing. Barring a black swan (plenty of those tbf of late) such as a takedown and rear naked choke, there's no way McGregor wins a boxing match. Nor has he been hit as hard as he is about to be hit, nor so often, nor in so many places.
So Mayweather winning in any (ie each) of rds 1-5 seems to me the standout bet at odds of between 16s and 24s.
I don't buy the "they'll keep it going" line - FMJ wants to win and in as short a time as possible. Once in the ring, it's about the boxing.
The Government is issuing not just one type of paper but two. Position papers, like the one on Northern Ireland and Ireland, are produced in grey. These set out UK proposals for the next round of negotiations and focus on issues under discussion for the withdrawal agreement.
“Future partnership” papers, produced in blue, represent the Government thinking aloud about what might follow. As such, these are aimed as much at the domestic audience as Brussels. One of their functions appears to move the internal debate within government forward. The customs paper explicitly invites views from business – but enforcement and dispute resolution paper doesn’t.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made theirts than they do now.
You're essentially arguing that in this respect, Britain had given up its sovereignty and should have no right to change the rules.
No, I'm arguing that if we want a deal we will have to find a compromise that the EU will accept and that this is not an issue that is worth risking a No Deal over.
I disagree, I think what we've put forward is entirely reasonable. If the EU doesn't like it then no deal it will be.
Fair enough. You think the risk of exposing the UK to long-term economic harm is less important than ensuring we do not agree to put in place mechanisms to guarantee five million or so British and EU27 citizens do not lose rights they currently enjoy. I don't. Such is life.
The comments are pretty sobering. Someone mentioned Victoria Coren-Mitchell's rant in last weekend's observer, which I hadn't read before. It's a powerful piece;
I'm left wondering whether - maybe - the best/simplest/least authoritarian solution would be to just ban the zero on these roulette games? The bookies would most likely ditch FOBT's voluntarily if we legislated away their edge.
Then they'd just increase the % bet to wouldnt they? Would the people who play them be price sensitive enough to care/notice?
Despite all the hype and hoopla there is no reason why Floyd couldn't or wouldn't knock out Conor at a time of his choosing. Barring a black swan (plenty of those tbf of late) such as a takedown and rear naked choke, there's no way McGregor wins a boxing match. Nor has he been hit as hard as he is about to be hit, nor so often, nor in so many places.
So Mayweather winning in any (ie each) of rds 1-5 seems to me the standout bet at odds of between 16s and 24s.
I don't buy the "they'll keep it going" line - FMJ wants to win and in as short a time as possible. Once in the ring, it's about the boxing.
Speed and accuracy of punch, combined with no serious experience of how to avoid such an assault, should settle it relatively quickly I'd have thought.
Well they aren't UK citizens. Why should they be able to swan off to a third country for as long as they want to and stroll back for the benefits whenever they feel like it?
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time. Therefore they would never notice any change. [edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? ...
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made theirts than they do now.
You're essentially arguing that in this respect, Britain had given up its sovereignty and should have no right to change the rules.
No, I'm arguing that if we want a deal we will have to find a compromise that the EU will accept and that this is not an issue that is worth risking a No Deal over.
I disagree, I think what we've put forward is entirely reasonable. If the EU doesn't like it then no deal it will be.
Fair enough. You think the risk of exposing the UK to long-term economic harm is less important than ensuring we do not agree to put in place mechanisms to guarantee five million or so British and EU27 citizens do not lose rights they currently enjoy. I don't. Such is life.
You ignore the long term economic harm from remaining in the EU.
Because they were the rights they had when they decided to make the UK their home.
If they decided to make the UK their home then they wouldn't be leaving for an extended period of time.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
People might leave for all kinds of reasons - a job secondment, a new job, to study, caring for a sick relative, a marriage that doesn't work out, and so on.
How many of those would involve a period of total absence for more than two years? And "a marriage that doesn't work out"... if that's their only tie to the UK, why would they come back?
I have no idea. What does it matter? EU citizens can currently leave the UK and return with the same rights. That is the basis on which those thatare currently here came in the first place. Why take that right away?
Because the UK is leaving the EU. UK citizens will lose the same rights in EU countries.
Only because the UK government is proposing it. There is nothing forcing the UK to make proposals that will lead to British citizens losing rights they currently enjoy.
Since the UK voted to leave the EU, and with it end freedom of movement.
EU27 citizens living in the UK and UK citizens currently living in the EU27 made their decisions based on existing rules. New rules should not be forced on them retrospectively. However, if the UK government wishes tomic hardship that will cause centred on an insistence that British citizens should enjoy fewer rights than they do now.
I don't really want to get involved in this but just thought of an example regarding changes to rules and regs.
AIUI, people went to Spain and bought property expecting a certain level of regulatory oversight and taxes. These were changed and these people are now facing a much harder time. Is that fair?
Life changes and we need to change with it. If I moved to a country and was happy for a number of years then there were cahnges I didn't like I could always vote with my feet. I did this when I was working in Italy about 25 years ago, loved it for the first couple of years but the beaurocracy got me down and I left.
The Spanish rules changed for everyone who owned property in Spain, not just a sub-set.
Despite all the hype and hoopla there is no reason why Floyd couldn't or wouldn't knock out Conor at a time of his choosing. Barring a black swan (plenty of those tbf of late) such as a takedown and rear naked choke, there's no way McGregor wins a boxing match. Nor has he been hit as hard as he is about to be hit, nor so often, nor in so many places.
So Mayweather winning in any (ie each) of rds 1-5 seems to me the standout bet at odds of between 16s and 24s.
I don't buy the "they'll keep it going" line - FMJ wants to win and in as short a time as possible. Once in the ring, it's about the boxing.
Speed and accuracy of punch, combined with no serious experience of how to avoid such an assault, should settle it relatively quickly I'd have thought.
If I were Floyd (ha haha hahahaha hahahahaha) I would be jabbing Conor out from the bell, not letting him set himself, being aggressive and then finding the shots to knock him down and out.
Everyone has in their minds the image of a defensive Mayweather on the ropes dodging shots from anyone and everyone, while we view Conor as the aggressor taking the fight to his opponent. But if he is not very qualified to be able to hit Mayweather going forward, he will be in an unknown world trying to fight off his back foot. A counterpuncher McGregor is not.
What will be will be. It isn't for us to decide the deal w the EU, it's for the government of the day, and the only time we get to have a say on it is on future election days.
The people looking to argue over every nanosecond of the negotiations are just those who can't accept defeat, and are trying to keep a secondary argument going to try and get a win out of it. Unfortunately for PB they are thread writers, editors, site owners and prolific tweet pasters. But we don't have to read it if we don't want to.
As a point of interest, this was written and submitted to Mike before you complained that I never wrote anything disobliging about the EU.
Sovereign states do not and should not enter into agreements in which the meaning and effect of the agreement is settled by the courts of the other party. The reason is obvious: one party would be at the mercy of the other. What’s more, the ECJ is no neutral arbiter, and its record is hardly one of dispassionate law application. The court has a political agenda and has demonstrated a systematic bias in favour of deeper European integration. For the UK to agree to be bound by the ECJ’s interpretation of the terms it agrees with the EU would be madness.
Sovereign states do not and should not enter into agreements in which the meaning and effect of the agreement is settled by the courts of the other party. The reason is obvious: one party would be at the mercy of the other. What’s more, the ECJ is no neutral arbiter, and its record is hardly one of dispassionate law application. The court has a political agenda and has demonstrated a systematic bias in favour of deeper European integration. For the UK to agree to be bound by the ECJ’s interpretation of the terms it agrees with the EU would be madness.
What will be will be. It isn't for us to decide the deal w the EU, it's for the government of the day, and the only time we get to have a say on it is on future election days.
The people looking to argue over every nanosecond of the negotiations are just those who can't accept defeat, and are trying to keep a secondary argument going to try and get a win out of it. Unfortunately for PB they are thread writers, editors, site owners and prolific tweet pasters. But we don't have to read it if we don't want to.
As a point of interest, this was written and submitted to Mike before you complained that I never wrote anything disobliging about the EU.
I said thread headers follow a template where lip service is paid to all points of view. Below the line you insult people who don't share your point of view in a way that makes you seem an awful snob. You've said before that this is just fun trolling, but it comes across as just bitter and pompous, and I don't really see the upside for you.
It seems to me that the people who spent the last 30 years telling everyone to be more sensitive to a persons back story and not to treat people as part of monolithic blocks were no different themselves.
Sovereign states do not and should not enter into agreements in which the meaning and effect of the agreement is settled by the courts of the other party. The reason is obvious: one party would be at the mercy of the other. What’s more, the ECJ is no neutral arbiter, and its record is hardly one of dispassionate law application. The court has a political agenda and has demonstrated a systematic bias in favour of deeper European integration. For the UK to agree to be bound by the ECJ’s interpretation of the terms it agrees with the EU would be madness.
Sovereign states do not and should not enter into agreements in which the meaning and effect of the agreement is settled by the courts of the other party. The reason is obvious: one party would be at the mercy of the other. What’s more, the ECJ is no neutral arbiter, and its record is hardly one of dispassionate law application. The court has a political agenda and has demonstrated a systematic bias in favour of deeper European integration. For the UK to agree to be bound by the ECJ’s interpretation of the terms it agrees with the EU would be madness.
I know we shouldn't read too much into analogies - but I found this astonishing:
When one of my colleagues from the British government went to Berlin in January and told me ‘Peter, let’s try to make a win-win situation out of this mess’ I said ‘yes, but can you imagine when you have a couple, man and wife, and two children, the house, the boat, the car, they are married for 30 years, and then they are going to divorce? Can you imagine how to make a win-win situation out of that mess?’ It will be a win-win situation for the lawyers of course, but certainly not for the family concerned,” he said.
I know more than a few divorced couples happier all round - sometimes it is better to get out than to soldier bravely on - the fact that he can't see this speaks volumes.....
The divorce analogy is an interesting one. It is expensive, costly, stressful, emotionally upsetting, and traumatising.
But, it happens for a reason: the couple simply have irreconcilable differences.
In the long-term, as you say, its often the right thing to do and both sides end up happier.
The problem is that we didn't have irreconcilable differences in the sense that like most divorces the couple had grown apart. This was more akin to a saggy ageing old man believing he's so devastatingly handsome he's obviously far too good for his attractive intelligent partner. It's actually quite sad to watch
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right to leave the UK for whatever amount of time - to care for an elderly relative, to take up a new job - and to return to resume their lives here. Under the UK government's proposals they would lose this right. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
Yep. The rights should be the same and be applied equally under UK law. There is simply no need for a foreign jurisdiction to be involved.
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right to leave the UK for whatever amount of time - to care for an elderly relative, to take up a new job - and to return to resume their lives here. Under the UK government's proposals they would lose this right. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
I am not sure there are any EU countries that do not allow dual citizenship. I haven't checked recently but I remember scanning through the lists a few months back and it struck me that dual citizenship seems to be allowed in all EU countries.
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
We saw in the case of the Finnish academic this week (and there have been numbers of similar perverse and unreasonable decisions) exactly why it is needed. EU citizens resident here need protection from our incompetent and arbitrary immigration decisions.
No they do not, In case you missed it (and of course you didn't, you are just being disingenuous) the error was found and corrected.
The error was that as an EU citizen she could not be deported yet. Post Brexit she could be. That is why EU wide courts are needed to protect her and millions of others.
Bollocks. You have no idea what the arrangement is going to be for EU citizens after Brexit and all the indications are that effectively nothing will change for them if they are already resident. You are just making stuff up because it suits your narrative. Typical utterly dishonest Remoaner.
Currently, they have the right to leave the UK for whatever amount of time - to care for an elderly relative, to take up a new job - and to return to resume their lives here. Under the UK government's proposals they would lose this right. That seems quite a biggie to me. If they get the same rights as UK citizens, that would not be an issue.
If they want identical rights to UK Citizens they should become UK Citizens - and if that means giving up their home country citizenship because THEY won't allow dual citizenship, then life is about choices.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
I am not sure there are any EU countries that do not allow dual citizenship. I haven't checked recently but I remember scanning through the lists a few months back and it struck me that dual citizenship seems to be allowed in all EU countries.
I'm sure there are - off to The Google to find out which ones.
Edit: Some of the newer entrants still don't and some impose restrictions but there aren't any outright bans. Austria's "only with special permission" might de facto mean anyone or no-one, for example.
Comments
LINO - Leaving In Name Only
Still awaiting the terrible punishment to be heaped upon the German car manufacturers.
Therefore they would never notice any change.
[edited for blockquote meltdown]
http://tinyurl.com/gqjpluz
https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/900982583546216449
Do I pick the British one or the EU one and risk getting myself entangled with some foreign court? You can bet your bottom dollar some chippy lawyer would crawl out from the bottom of the pond trying to make a name for themselves on this.
Why invite the hassle on yourself?
No one comes out of Traingate looking particularly good. Corbyn's team were initially disorganised in their messaging. The Guardian acknowledges that it made errors in its reporting. And as the Double Down video highlights, much of the wider media should have been more sceptical, rather than following an anti-Corbyn narrative. The saga also didn't look great for Virgin – not just because of a crowded train, but also because Branson's intervention looked like a billionaire meddling in politics.
But for Double Down to present its footage as proof of a conspiracy to smear Corbyn is a little awkward, when it has heavily spun its own story. When calling for less cosiness in the media, it would also help to mention that one of its directors was a key player in the whole affair.
Just not sure B and Q sell the size of chisel I have in mind.
Binning off the EU is too much of an agg. Was a naughty idea but no one really wants out now. Two fingers up to the politicos but now we move on. Tracy May should do one.
Pick a reason and shuffle the pack. You can't pick the laws you like to stay in aspic and the ones you don't like are the only ones up for discussion.
The oppressor should also foot the removal bill and compensate you for generations of hurt feelings too. You haven't thought out the compo claim - concealed behind a distracting demand for a full apology from public figures who were never involved.
You are an amateur at this. C-
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/seven-things-we-have-learned-government’s-brexit-papers
Maternity leave can be very difficult for a small company to bear. The generous terms and pay may've gotten good headlines, but the reality is that if a small business owner with perhaps 3-5 employees has the choice between someone with a realistic chance of taking months off on pay, or someone much less likely (whether male or just an older woman), many will go for the latter.
Unintended consequences are something that politicians don't consider enough.
McLaren already has a problem with Alonso's car.
The UK is different because, uniquely, it is leaving the bloc and because it wants continuity.
..... @...tumbleweed ..... @ ... @...
Well. Unless you have a Honda engine. Then all is bleak. The sky is dark. Cold rain falls without cease. Icy teeth of a frigid gale bite deep into the soul. Where are we sleeping tonight, mother? Father's grave?
This isn't 'everybody comes out bad let's move on'. Corbyn was hammered for weeks in the press and on tv during an election campaign on the basis he lied, due to Virgin's intervention - which the footage shows was a lie.
If that footage isn't new completely, the important bits seem to be. It's certainly new to me.
Edit: sorry for typos and shite phrasing, on phone
That shows 2017 to me. Which is tbe one you mean, does it show the people sat on the floor and the children in the seats Branson tweeted as 'empty and unreserved'?
This is why people need protections by trade unions and courts.
Maybe I can afford a pneumatic drill after all!
I'd support any candidate who proposed allowing me to decide openly and honestly who I employed to work for me in a company that I own. But that isn't the situation right now and therefore I follow the current law.
I agree that we should give leave to remain to any EU citizen in the UK already, but after we leave we shouldn’t treat citizens of EU countries any different from how we treat Americans, Indians or Ukrainians when it comes to living and working in the UK.
The people looking to argue over every nanosecond of the negotiations are just those who can't accept defeat, and are trying to keep a secondary argument going to try and get a win out of it. Unfortunately for PB they are thread writers, editors, site owners and prolific tweet pasters. But we don't have to read it if we don't want to.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/problem-gamblers-uk-gambling-commission-report
The comments are pretty sobering. Someone mentioned Victoria Coren-Mitchell's rant in last weekend's observer, which I hadn't read before. It's a powerful piece;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/a-stupid-gamble-on-evil-machines
I'm left wondering whether - maybe - the best/simplest/least authoritarian solution would be to just ban the zero on these roulette games? The bookies would most likely ditch FOBT's voluntarily if we legislated away their edge.
AIUI, people went to Spain and bought property expecting a certain level of regulatory oversight and taxes. These were changed and these people are now facing a much harder time. Is that fair?
Life changes and we need to change with it. If I moved to a country and was happy for a number of years then there were cahnges I didn't like I could always vote with my feet. I did this when I was working in Italy about 25 years ago, loved it for the first couple of years but the beaurocracy got me down and I left.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/
The EU average unemployment rate for the young of 17% is bad but would have been worse without the UK pulling down the average through our lower rate of 12% and providing jobs for many young from the EU27. Once we exit, the average rate for the EU27 will REMAIN high
and we should expect a Leaver such as the UK to fall under 10%.
Those in the Euro get the dubious "benefit" of 2% more unemployed young.
Despite all the hype and hoopla there is no reason why Floyd couldn't or wouldn't knock out Conor at a time of his choosing. Barring a black swan (plenty of those tbf of late) such as a takedown and rear naked choke, there's no way McGregor wins a boxing match. Nor has he been hit as hard as he is about to be hit, nor so often, nor in so many places.
So Mayweather winning in any (ie each) of rds 1-5 seems to me the standout bet at odds of between 16s and 24s.
I don't buy the "they'll keep it going" line - FMJ wants to win and in as short a time as possible. Once in the ring, it's about the boxing.
Lesson one: Colours matter
The Government is issuing not just one type of paper but two. Position papers, like the one on Northern Ireland and Ireland, are produced in grey. These set out UK proposals for the next round of negotiations and focus on issues under discussion for the withdrawal agreement.
“Future partnership” papers, produced in blue, represent the Government thinking aloud about what might follow. As such, these are aimed as much at the domestic audience as Brussels. One of their functions appears to move the internal debate within government forward. The customs paper explicitly invites views from business – but enforcement and dispute resolution paper doesn’t.
Everyone has in their minds the image of a defensive Mayweather on the ropes dodging shots from anyone and everyone, while we view Conor as the aggressor taking the fight to his opponent. But if he is not very qualified to be able to hit Mayweather going forward, he will be in an unknown world trying to fight off his back foot. A counterpuncher McGregor is not.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/the-government-is-right-to-turn-its-back-on-the-european-court-of-justice/
PS In the Wonder Book of Aircraft (1919) every schoolboy will have known about parabola, the shape made by shells fired in the war.
It seems to me that the people who spent the last 30 years telling everyone to be more sensitive to a persons back story and not to treat people as part of monolithic blocks were no different themselves.
Can I count reading PB as Continuing Professional Education?
Edit: Okay, just used Find On This Page and it's in the thread header. That's why I didn't see it.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/battle-of-the-tories-who-will-succeed-theresa-may-a3617276.html
Although as a fan and as one of my bigger leadership bets, I'm not sure about this line:
‘[Rory] Stewart would have been an outstanding PM in the 19th century, if we still had an overseas empire to run.’
In the article above by Mr Meeks. At the end of the section titled THE EU.
Edit: Some of the newer entrants still don't and some impose restrictions but there aren't any outright bans. Austria's "only with special permission" might de facto mean anyone or no-one, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship#EU_countries