Brexiteers – and some Remainers – tell me I am wasting my time, it is going to happen, I should use my energies to try to help make it a success. But I cannot get behind something I believe to be so wrong, so incompetently handled, so against the interests of the next generation. I see no happy ending in this. I may not be wholly confident in thinking it can be stopped. But I am totally convinced it should be. And it is anything but anti democratic to say that in a democracy, people have the right to change their minds, and change course. I hope we do.
Funny just yesterday lots of Remainers on here were claimimgbthat no one was trying to srop Brexit.
I respect the vote last year too. It's the vote last year that will lead to the political destruction of the Brexiteers.
A reply that is not only completely wrong but also fails to address the point i was making which is that, counter to the claims made by Remainers yesterday , there are plenty of people actively campaigning to stop Brexit by any means necessary. They may be deluded but that does not mean one can pretend they don't exist.
On topic, it's not completely impossible for May to turn it around. Corbyn was doing a lot worse than May is now a year ago and he is now in a very strong position.
Who knows what might happen in the next 5 years.
Corbyn needed a few tweaks and fine tunings to get a grip of his poor ratings....not to get tetchy under scrutiny for instance....
May needs to replace her brain with the brain of someone who isn't robotic and shows a bit of personality.
Corbyn was practically being carried away by the men in white coats in his own party before the election. It wasn't just a case of fine tuning.
Corbyn's ability to soldier on despite the mass resignations and press frenzy following the EU vote was one of the most remarkable pieces of political tenacity, courage and resilience shown by any leader in any democracy. To face down his internal opposition, win a resounding leadership campaign and then deprive May of a majority was quite astonishing.
I'm no Corbynite by any stretch, but I admire him. I cannot see any Tory leader who would beat him in a GE given present circumstances.
Corbyn has to win three times as many seats next time as he did in 2017 and to do so in seats which require a direct swing from Tory to Labour. it is unlikely. As for Corbyn's survival post Brexit, it was one of the most undemocratic events in our history as MPs with millions of votes mandating them were ignored at the expense of thousands. As for the 2017 election, Labour would be in power right now if Corbyn were not leader.
Unless the Conservatives make a reasonable fist of Brexit Corbyn is your next PM. As it stands a pain free Brexit is less than likely.
The Conservatives have that 1997 aroma of decay around them at present and every generation except those eligible for a Saga holiday can smell it.
Your best hope of avoiding a Corbyn Premiership is probably divine intervention. Amen!
If there were grown ups in the room, Juncker would have been sacked, the nations leaders all reject federalism and recognise free movement needs overhauling.
Name one national leader who thinks free movement within the EU should end.
The worrying thing is, Blair is a complete chump, but there is a realistic possiblity that he has the respect of people in the eu whose respect is worth having, and the intellect and adulthood required to have a constructive discussion with them; unlike anyone in government.
Btw whom is she addressing in Florence? I was assuming that there was some eu summity thing going on, but is there? Or has she just randomly booked a church hall to orate in like she did in the GE "campaign"?
The rebate scandal suggests we were never respected no matter how much we played ball.
The same goes for Major and the Social Chapter debacle.
"I'm told negotiator EU Michel Barnier is likely to respond within 15 minutes of Theresa May making her big EU speech in Florence tomorrow" - no need to listen then.
This thread title is not really true. May is actually as popular as her party, liked by 38% ie the same as the Tories however Corbyn is less popular than his, liked by 46% compared to 54%.
That suggests if Labour had a moderate leader they would have a bigger lead than they do now and Corbyn is still holding them back, however the Tories need someone extra special to win most seats for a 4th consecutive general election and let us not forget only Boris of the potential contendors has taken the Tory rating higher than May does in any hypothetical Tory leadership poll since the election
If there were grown ups in the room, Juncker would have been sacked, the nations leaders all reject federalism and recognise free movement needs overhauling.
Name one national leader who thinks free movement within the EU should end.
The worrying thing is, Blair is a complete chump, but there is a realistic possiblity that he has the respect of people in the eu whose respect is worth having, and the intellect and adulthood required to have a constructive discussion with them; unlike anyone in government.
Btw whom is she addressing in Florence? I was assuming that there was some eu summity thing going on, but is there? Or has she just randomly booked a church hall to orate in like she did in the GE "campaign"?
The rebate scandal suggests we were never respected no matter how much we played ball.
The same goes for Major and the Social Chapter debacle.
I mean Blair as an individual, not us as a country.
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If May's speech is constructive and perceived as a fair offer by the voters and Barnier dishes it within 15 minutes, the EU and remainers will become unpopular very quickly and we will be entering the walk away mode, with the support of the Nation
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
They can do that with the UK courts as has been proved time and time again. Your point is simply wrong.
"I'm told negotiator EU Michel Barnier is likely to respond within 15 minutes of Theresa May making her big EU speech in Florence tomorrow" - no need to listen then.
Barnier will say the £20bn is the cost of staying in the single market/customs union for the two transition years (£10bn a year like now), but is nothing to do with the divorce bill which remains £100bn.
In a negotiation the UK should start from a position of paying nothing and work upwards - not start by offering £20bn.
surbiton - every TDI produces 50 times more NO2 than Volkswagen claimed. It is a deliberate, uncaring, attack on the health of the UK. Made possible only by the pretence of common standards. Why has JLR met standards in the UK, but not any German manufacturer? What should be the penalty for killing thousands on people in the UK every year?
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
There would have to be a political realignment for that to occur and the Tories would effectively have to cease to exist and be replaced by a new centre right party
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
"I'm told negotiator EU Michel Barnier is likely to respond within 15 minutes of Theresa May making her big EU speech in Florence tomorrow" - no need to listen then.
It is said that he already has the speach so 15 mins is quite reasonble as for those who believe there is no need to listen then you typify the attitude that will see us done over just to achieve a dream which i'll never understand
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
There would have to be a political realignment for that to occur and the Tories would effectively have to cease to exist and be replaced by a new centre right party
Effectively like the Liberals being replaced by Labour, except for the fact that the Conservatives don't have any right-wing opposition in Parliament. And the Liberals went out of office in October 1922 and came back in May 2010 (88 years), so it's actually 55% worse than that.
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
They can do thstvwithnthe UK courts as has been proved time and time again. Your point is simply wrong.
As long as UK courts implement EU law and are subject to the ECJ. Strictly speaking they are not, but if domestic courts fail to follow ECJ case law, litigants can go to the ECJ and get the judgement there.
BTW I think jurisdiction is a difficult issue to resolve. I am guessing the EU really are looking for equivalence, but in that case it's up to the UK negotiators to make a proposal and to explain why the guarantees under the alternative system are just as good.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
"I'm told negotiator EU Michel Barnier is likely to respond within 15 minutes of Theresa May making her big EU speech in Florence tomorrow" - no need to listen then.
Barnier will say the £20bn is the cost of staying in the single market/customs union for the two transition years (£10bn a year like now), but is nothing to do with the divorce bill which remains £100bn.
In a negotiation the UK should start from a position of paying nothing and work upwards - not start by offering £20bn.
If Barnier says that, we might as well walk away tomorrow and start preparing to leave with no deal.
Our attitude to their divorce bill should be that we will discuss it only when they tell us what it is for and on what basis it is calculated.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If May's speech is constructive and perceived as a fair offer by the voters and Barnier dishes it within 15 minutes, the EU and remainers will become unpopular very quickly and we will be entering the walk away mode, with the support of the Nation
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If May's speech is constructive and perceived as a fair offer by the voters and Barnier dishes it within 15 minutes, the EU and remainers will become unpopular very quickly and we will be entering the walk away mode, with the support of the Nation
If.
Agreed - big word 'if' - she has to deliver the speech of her life
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
There would have to be a political realignment for that to occur and the Tories would effectively have to cease to exist and be replaced by a new centre right party
Effectively like the Liberals being replaced by Labour, except for the fact that the Conservatives don't have any right-wing opposition in Parliament. And the Liberals went out of office in October 1922 and came back in May 2010 (88 years), so it's actually 55% worse than that.
The only way it would happen realistically is if May did a soft Brexit to keep the UK in the single market permanently and paid say 50 billion euros to the EU with only token controls on free movement and Farage came back to lead UKIP, they overtook the Tories at the next general election and eventually merged with them to form a new Conservative Party as happened in Canada when the Reform Party eventually took over the Progressive Conservative Party and the new party won the 2006 general election in .
May would then be the Tories Kim Campbell, who was the last Progressive Conservative PM before losing the 1993 general election to the Liberals with the Reform Party overtaking them as the main party of the right
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
surbiton - every TDI produces 50 times more NO2 than Volkswagen claimed. It is a deliberate, uncaring, attack on the health of the UK. Made possible only by the pretence of common standards. Why has JLR met standards in the UK, but not any German manufacturer? What should be the penalty for killing thousands on people in the UK every year?
Whereas you are absolutely correct that a moral rubicon has been crossed over the diesel scandal, it was generally seen that most manufacturers were in fact cheating the figures.
I don't believe Volkswagen's cunning plan was to succeed where the Luftwaffe failed, they just wanted to sell us more diesel cars because Tony Blair had told us they were more fuel efficient and hence good for the environment.
So it is not VWs fault it was Tony Blair's fault. Wait...that sounds a bit too PB Tory!
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
They can do thstvwithnthe UK courts as has been proved time and time again. Your point is simply wrong.
As long as UK courts implement EU law and are subject to the ECJ. Strictly speaking they are not, but if domestic courts fail to follow ECJ case law, litigants can go to the ECJ and get the judgement there.
BTW I think jurisdiction is a difficult issue to resolve. I am guessing the EU really are looking for equivalence, but in that case it's up to the UK negotiators to make a proposal and to explain why the guarantees under the alternative system are just as good.
Not at all. The UK has to be governed by UK law as a basic principle. The idea that UK courts are any less stringent in interpreting or enforcing law than the ECJ is just laughable. Not least because the ECJ has a specific remit to interpret law according to the EU treaties and for the benefit of Ever Closer Union. As such they are far more 'political' than any UK court.
The ECJ should have no jurisdiction within the UK after Brexit.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
How do you reconcile a country that about 5o% believe we are doing the right thing by leaving but unable to define what the future will be like with the (about) 50% who think its crazy. I see no way forward
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
They can do thstvwithnthe UK courts as has been proved time and time again. Your point is simply wrong.
As long as UK courts implement EU law and are subject to the ECJ. Strictly speaking they are not, but if domestic courts fail to follow ECJ case law, litigants can go to the ECJ and get the judgement there.
BTW I think jurisdiction is a difficult issue to resolve. I am guessing the EU really are looking for equivalence, but in that case it's up to the UK negotiators to make a proposal and to explain why the guarantees under the alternative system are just as good.
Not at all. The UK has to be governed by UK law as a basic principle. The idea that UK courts are any less stringent in interpreting or enforcing law than the ECJ is just laughable. Not least because the ECJ has a specific remit to interpret law according to the EU treaties and for the benefit of Ever Closer Union. As such they are far more 'political' than any UK court.
The ECJ should have no jurisdiction within the UK after Brexit.
I can tolerate virtually anything, and am relatively sanguine about payments to the EU, but the ECJ ruling upon citizens living in our own country would be an absolute red line for me.
How do you reconcile a country that about 5o% believe we are doing the right thing by leaving but unable to define what the future will be like with the (about) 50% who think its crazy. I see no way forward
I would challenge your numbers. Most of those who voted against Brexit do not think the other half are crazy. It is only the Eurofanatics who have that warped belief.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
I think your views are the same as Osborne's, whether you admit it or not.
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
This has unintended consequences for European Citizens in the UK written all over it. The EU will have created two classes of people before the law in the UK: Europeans who have recourse to a foreign court and everyone else who doesn't. So Europeans will have an extra right but also a burden in that anyone interacting with them legally ( buying a house, renting, business deals, employing them) will have to take that into account - or they certainly will when the first test case becomes publicised. It even extends to anyone who might be able to claim European citizenship even if they never have or want to because the Brit interacting cannot rule out that risk. So your granny might've run the Orange Lodge in East Belfast in 1896 and was not on de Valera's Xmas card list to say the least, and you might never have been anywhere near the Emerald Isle and can't stand the sight of Guinness but Barnier will have stiffed you with a potential issue you can't get rid of even if you want to.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
Not sure Theresa will be seducing a woman 35 years her junior! ...However, her polls could rise.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
Not sure Theresa will be seducing a woman 35 years her junior! ...However, her polls could rise.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
I think your views are the same as Osborne's, whether you admit it or not.
The number of people who watched George Osborne on ITV's election night show and said to me that listening to what he said was just like listening to me is in the dozens.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
Hammond, and Brexit should mirror all the trading benefits we have now without free movement of people we don't want or like to come here from the EU although we should be allowed to travel everywhere in the EU and Schengen and still be able to use our EHIC cards.
Sadly if that were ever to happen we would be flying to Europe not by Ryanair but by squadron of pigs.
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
They can do thstvwithnthe UK courts as has been proved time and time again. Your point is simply wrong.
As long as UK courts implement EU law and are subject to the ECJ. Strictly speaking they are not, but if domestic courts fail to follow ECJ case law, litigants can go to the ECJ and get the judgement there.
BTW I think jurisdiction is a difficult issue to resolve. I am guessing the EU really are looking for equivalence, but in that case it's up to the UK negotiators to make a proposal and to explain why the guarantees under the alternative system are just as good.
Not at all. The UK has to be governed by UK law as a basic principle. The idea that UK courts are any less stringent in interpreting or enforcing law than the ECJ is just laughable. Not least because the ECJ has a specific remit to interpret law according to the EU treaties and for the benefit of Ever Closer Union. As such they are far more 'political' than any UK court.
The ECJ should have no jurisdiction within the UK after Brexit.
The issue isn't the courts. The issue is the law that those courts are or are not implementing. The reason why the Home Office had to back down on residence muckups wasn't either because of Home Office willingness to sort things out or because of laws and regulations initiated by the UK government but because the Home Office were acting unlawfully under EU law, which no longer applies after Brexit. That's why citizen rights groups and the EU want recourse to EU law in courts that have jurisdiction for that law.
@Casino_Royale - You may be interested in this video about the EU's work on the ground in Sierra Leone. Agricultural imports are tariff and quota free.
The issue isn't the courts. The issue is the law that those courts are or are not implementing. The reason why the Home Office had to back down on residence muckups wasn't either because of Home Office willingness to sort things out or because of laws and regulations initiated by the UK government but because the Home Office were acting unlawfully under EU law, which no longer applies after Brexit. That's why citizen rights groups and the EU want recourse to EU law in courts that have jurisdiction for that law.
Given that the whole point of the bill currently going through Parliament is to transcribe EU law into UK law there is absolutely no reason to believe that there will be any change. Indeed if your concern is about the law itself then that is something that is being discussed as part of the Brexit negotiations. There is absolutely no need for the enforcement of that law to rest with any court outside the UK.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
I've just written a thread for tomorrow morning about WW1 and a thread for Sunday about bikinis.
I hope it has a picture of "a tiny winne, yellow, polkadot bikini"!
I hadn't thought about that.
Bikinis are an interseting issue in more recent spanish history because they were banned on the beaches in spain except for Benidorm. As Franco not only recognied the importance of tourism but also owned a lot of property there he made an exception . Has Benidorm benefited? Yes and although much derided by people its actualy good fun for three or four nights out of season
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
I think your views are the same as Osborne's, whether you admit it or not.
He certainly shares the same disdain for anyone not part of the monied elite.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
There would have to be a political realignment for that to occur and the Tories would effectively have to cease to exist and be replaced by a new centre right party
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
This has unintended consequences for European Citizens in the UK written all over it. The EU will have created two classes of people before the law in the UK: Europeans who have recourse to a foreign court and everyone else who doesn't. So Europeans will have an extra right but also a burden in that anyone interacting with them legally ( buying a house, renting, business deals, employing them) will have to take that into account - or they certainly will when the first test case becomes publicised. It even extends to anyone who might be able to claim European citizenship even if they never have or want to because the Brit interacting cannot rule out that risk. So your granny might've run the Orange Lodge in East Belfast in 1896 and was not on de Valera's Xmas card list to say the least, and you might never have been anywhere near the Emerald Isle and can't stand the sight of Guinness but Barnier will have stiffed you with a potential issue you can't get rid of even if you want to.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
There are definitely tricky issues around jurisdiction. As I said to Richard, . I suspect the EU really are looking for equivalence, where the UK negotiators make a proposal of an alternative system and explain why the guarantees under that system are just as good. But I don't know that.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
I think your views are the same as Osborne's, whether you admit it or not.
The number of people who watched George Osborne on ITV's election night show and said to me that listening to what he said was just like listening to me is in the dozens.
Yes. But, I didn't rubbish the exit poll.
As soon as I heard it, I knew in my heart it was true.
I didn't fail to notice the smile on Osborne's face as he saw it either.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
I think your views are the same as Osborne's, whether you admit it or not.
The number of people who watched George Osborne on ITV's election night show and said to me that listening to what he said was just like listening to me is in the dozens.
Yes. But, I didn't rubbish the exit poll.
As soon as I heard it, I knew in my heart it was true.
I didn't fail to notice the smile on Osborne's face as he saw it either.
He was hurting in the inside, he still is by the result.
He loves the Tory party and the country, and he saw his and Dave's decade long hard work undone just like that, he saw hard working colleagues and friends lose their seats because of Mrs May.
He might not love Brexit in any shape or form, but he knows a Corbyn government will be the worst thing to happen to this country in decades.
You only need to see Labour's plan today on what price they'll pay to re-nationalise the utilities on how bad they'll be for the country.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Big_G_NorthWales - German's sales will collapse in the UK. There is nothing they make that you cannot make yourself/
You may be right! My father was all set to buy an Audi 80C in the mid-seventies but a price increase from a significant devauation of Sterling against the Mark rendered it too expensive for his pocket so an Austin Allegro 1750HL arrived instead. Like you say, 'There is nothing they make that you cannot make yourself'.
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
This has unintended consequences for European Citizens in the UK written all over it. The EU will have created two classes of people before the law in the UK: Europeans who have recourse to a foreign court and everyone else who doesn't. So Europeans will have an extra right but also a burden in that anyone interacting with them legally ( buying a house, renting, business deals, employing them) will have to take that into account - or they certainly will when the first test case becomes publicised. It even extends to anyone who might be able to claim European citizenship even if they never have or want to because the Brit interacting cannot rule out that risk. So your granny might've run the Orange Lodge in East Belfast in 1896 and was not on de Valera's Xmas card list to say the least, and you might never have been anywhere near the Emerald Isle and can't stand the sight of Guinness but Barnier will have stiffed you with a potential issue you can't get rid of even if you want to.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
There are definitely tricky issues around jurisdiction. As I said to Richard, . I suspect the EU really are looking for equivalence, where the UK negotiators make a proposal of an alternative system and explain why the guarantees under that system are just as good. But I don't know that.
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
This has unintended consequences for European Citizens in the UK written all over it. The EU will have created two classes of people before the law in the UK: Europeans who have recourse to a foreign court and everyone else who doesn't. So Europeans will have an extra right but also a burden in that anyone interacting with them legally ( buying a house, renting, business deals, employing them) will have to take that into account - or they certainly will when the first test case becomes publicised. It even extends to anyone who might be able to claim European citizenship even if they never have or want to because the Brit interacting cannot rule out that risk. So your granny might've run the Orange Lodge in East Belfast in 1896 and was not on de Valera's Xmas card list to say the least, and you might never have been anywhere near the Emerald Isle and can't stand the sight of Guinness but Barnier will have stiffed you with a potential issue you can't get rid of even if you want to.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
There are definitely tricky issues around jurisdiction. As I said to Richard, . I suspect the EU really are looking for equivalence, where the UK negotiators make a proposal of an alternative system and explain why the guarantees under that system are just as good. But I don't know that.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
They will find people to work in Frankfurt. Trust me on that.
Locals, and administrators yes. Backroom staff.
All the big swinging dicks are staying in London. All of them.
I have inside information, and you are just wrong.
Sorry
People may not move but if the jobs move they will find people to fill them. That applies to any industry.
Only a handful to the extent that is absolutely essential to provide eurobond services that cannot be fully provided by London in the absence of the financial passport, and London will continue to grow and develop new markets still faster.
The idea that Frankfurt is going to become the new "City" of the EU is fantasy.
One would hope not. TSE is predicting that if Theresa May leads the Conservative party into an election on 7 May 2020, the Tories will be out of power for at least one hundred and thirty-six years.
She's a modern Asquith. Discuss.
A genuine questions - who would you have as PM - how should Brexit progress
I'd be happy with any of the following, Hammond, Hunt, Fallon, Clark, or Liddington.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
I think your views are the same as Osborne's, whether you admit it or not.
The number of people who watched George Osborne on ITV's election night show and said to me that listening to what he said was just like listening to me is in the dozens.
Yes. But, I didn't rubbish the exit poll.
As soon as I heard it, I knew in my heart it was true.
I didn't fail to notice the smile on Osborne's face as he saw it either.
He was hurting in the inside, he still is by the result.
He loves the Tory party and the country, and he saw his and Dave's decade long hard work undone just like that, he saw hard working colleagues and friends lose their seats because of Mrs May.
He might not love Brexit in any shape or form, but he knows a Corbyn government will be the worst thing to happen to this country in decades.
You only need to see Labour's plan today on what price they'll pay to re-nationalise the utilities on how bad they'll be for the country.
My reading: he was initially pleased to see May humbled, and himself vindicated, and that rapidly turned to anger.
Mexicanpete - if we weren't in the EU, the Audi couldn't be sold here - even though we were to have the same NO2 standards as the EU. Why not compare your Audi to a JLR product - which doesn't need to kill people with pollution? Rather than a car 60 years old.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
This has unintended consequences for European Citizens in the UK written all over it. The EU will have created two classes of people before the law in the UK: Europeans who have recourse to a foreign court and everyone else who doesn't. So Europeans will have an extra right but also a burden in that anyone interacting with them legally ( buying a house, renting, business deals, employing them) will have to take that into account - or they certainly will when the first test case becomes publicised. It even extends to anyone who might be able to claim European citizenship even if they never have or want to because the Brit interacting cannot rule out that risk. So your granny might've run the Orange Lodge in East Belfast in 1896 and was not on de Valera's Xmas card list to say the least, and you might never have been anywhere near the Emerald Isle and can't stand the sight of Guinness but Barnier will have stiffed you with a potential issue you can't get rid of even if you want to.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
There are definitely tricky issues around jurisdiction. As I said to Richard, . I suspect the EU really are looking for equivalence, where the UK negotiators make a proposal of an alternative system and explain why the guarantees under that system are just as good. But I don't know that.
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
A ludicrous lack of logic there. The British government ignores the courts that have the power to compel it to act, so it must be subject to the rule of other courts based abroad that have absolutely no authority over it instead?
It's the more amusing of course as Barnier himself ignored an ECJ ruling to lift an illegal French export ban on our beef (and that blatantly political ban, in a further irony, cost us around £60 billion).
I think logical, although maybe objectionable, depending on your view. If the Home Office doesn't behave itself, and Barnier claims it has a history of misbehaving, individual citizens can go to a court in the confidence that there is a real sanction on the UK government should the Home Office not mend its ways.
This has unintended consequences for European Citizens in the UK written all over it. The EU will have created two classes of people before the law in the UK: Europeans who have recourse to a foreign court and everyone else who doesn't. So Europeans will have an extra right but also a burden in that anyone interacting with them legally ( buying a house, renting, business deals, employing them) will have to take that into account - or they certainly will when the first test case becomes publicised. It even extends to anyone who might be able to claim European citizenship even if they never have or want to because the Brit interacting cannot rule out that risk. So your granny might've run the Orange Lodge in East Belfast in 1896 and was not on de Valera's Xmas card list to say the least, and you might never have been anywhere near the Emerald Isle and can't stand the sight of Guinness but Barnier will have stiffed you with a potential issue you can't get rid of even if you want to.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
There are definitely tricky issues around jurisdiction. As I said to Richard, . I suspect the EU really are looking for equivalence, where the UK negotiators make a proposal of an alternative system and explain why the guarantees under that system are just as good. But I don't know that.
We need a third party neutral court.
My personal view is that could work for citizen rights, which are likely to be static but not for integrated trade. The same case law needs to be applied in both the UK and the EU get a level playing field and as the EU won't change their domestic arrangements that has to be the ECJ or ECJ mirror.
@David_Evershed Absolutely spot on. Another part of the disaster is the way ' Divorce Bill ' has been allowed to frame the debate. First setting the level of maintenance payments after a divorce is a better analogy. Some of these liabilities will last for years and declining sums will be paid for years. Second unlike any divorce I know we're attempting to negotiate a time limited period of cohabitation and sex after the divorce while continuing to share the Netflix account. It's more akin to giving up cigarettes by slowly cutting down then switching to vaping rather than ' Divorce '. Third even Hard Brexiteers are proposing we remain in some EU bodies in perpetuity. Those mean continued payments in perpetuity. Those certainly aren't a Divorce Bill.
So May is offering €20bn for transition and Barnier is immediately going to say " That's great. We can discuss that in Stage 2 but as you know to get to Stage 2 we need to settle the divorce bill... "
@David_Evershed Absolutely spot on. Another part of the disaster is the way ' Divorce Bill ' has been allowed to frame the debate. First setting the level of maintenance payments after a divorce is a better analogy. Some of these liabilities will last for years and declining sums will be paid for years. Second unlike any divorce I know we're attempting to negotiate a time limited period of cohabitation and sex after the divorce while continuing to share the Netflix account. It's more akin to giving up cigarettes by slowly cutting down then switching to vaping rather than ' Divorce '. Third even Hard Brexiteers are proposing we remain in some EU bodies in perpetuity. Those mean continued payments in perpetuity. Those certainly aren't a Divorce Bill.
So May is offering €20bn for transition and Barnier is immediately going to say " That's great. We can discuss that in Stage 2 but as you know to get to Stage 2 we need to settle the divorce bill... "
UK = responsible, hard-working spouse wot pays all the bills
Look at the headline, you'd London had just lost Lloyds.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
Bloody immigrants driving up house prices in Germany too:
Comments
The Conservatives have that 1997 aroma of decay around them at present and every generation except those eligible for a Saga holiday can smell it.
Your best hope of avoiding a Corbyn Premiership is probably divine intervention. Amen!
That suggests if Labour had a moderate leader they would have a bigger lead than they do now and Corbyn is still holding them back, however the Tories need someone extra special to win most seats for a 4th consecutive general election and let us not forget only Boris of the potential contendors has taken the Tory rating higher than May does in any hypothetical Tory leadership poll since the election
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9939
In a negotiation the UK should start from a position of paying nothing and work upwards - not start by offering £20bn.
BTW I think jurisdiction is a difficult issue to resolve. I am guessing the EU really are looking for equivalence, but in that case it's up to the UK negotiators to make a proposal and to explain why the guarantees under the alternative system are just as good.
Our attitude to their divorce bill should be that we will discuss it only when they tell us what it is for and on what basis it is calculated.
As for how should Brexit progress? I've said we should have asked for a three to five year transitional deal and slowly decoupled from the EU, Brexit should be a process not an event.
May would then be the Tories Kim Campbell, who was the last Progressive Conservative PM before losing the 1993 general election to the Liberals with the Reform Party overtaking them as the main party of the right
CDU 37 SPD 22 AfD 10 Die Linke 9 FDP 9 Greens 8
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/gms.htm
I don't believe Volkswagen's cunning plan was to succeed where the Luftwaffe failed, they just wanted to sell us more diesel cars because Tony Blair had told us they were more fuel efficient and hence good for the environment.
So it is not VWs fault it was Tony Blair's fault. Wait...that sounds a bit too PB Tory!
The ECJ should have no jurisdiction within the UK after Brexit.
Read the article, the reality: "It is thought that initially fewer than 100 XL posts will be created in Dublin, where the Bermuda-registered company has operated since 1990."
So a company that is already operating in Dublin, and has done for over 25 years, based in a tax haven, is creating a few dozen more jobs there.
Good luck to them.
I've just written a thread for tomorrow morning about WW1 and a thread for Sunday about bikinis.
This is why we have equality before the law in a jurisdiction surely, to avoid awkward situations like this.
So how come she looks about 65 years old?
Seriously, she hasn't aged well.
Sadly if that were ever to happen we would be flying to Europe not by Ryanair but by squadron of pigs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ7KKVfmU44
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/uk-not-the-only-victim-brexit-hits-frankfurt-housing.html
See http://equaindex.com for actual data, rather than hearsay.
No-one. Trust me.
Fox jr did his school German exchange there and rather liked it.
As soon as I heard it, I knew in my heart it was true.
I didn't fail to notice the smile on Osborne's face as he saw it either.
Colmar
National 46%
Labour 37%
Greens 8%
NZ First 5%
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/watch-national-takes-huge-lead-in-bombshell-1-news-colmar-brunton-poll
Newshub
National 45.8%
Labour 37.3%
Greens 7.1%
NZ First 7.1%
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/09/newshub-election-poll-either-national-labour-could-take-power.html
No-one is moving. And no-one wants to go.
In his own words: "I'd rather kill myself."
PS. He voted Remain, and is very pro-EU.
All the big swinging dicks are staying in London. All of them.
I have inside information, and you are just wrong.
Sorry
He loves the Tory party and the country, and he saw his and Dave's decade long hard work undone just like that, he saw hard working colleagues and friends lose their seats because of Mrs May.
He might not love Brexit in any shape or form, but he knows a Corbyn government will be the worst thing to happen to this country in decades.
You only need to see Labour's plan today on what price they'll pay to re-nationalise the utilities on how bad they'll be for the country.
Even before Brexit tons of jobs were being shed from the back office in London.
The idea that Frankfurt is going to become the new "City" of the EU is fantasy.
He isn't hard to read.
NEW THREAD
integrated trade. The same case law needs to be applied in both the UK and the EU get a level playing field and as the EU won't change their domestic arrangements that has to be the ECJ or ECJ mirror.
So May is offering €20bn for transition and Barnier is immediately going to say " That's great. We can discuss that in Stage 2 but as you know to get to Stage 2 we need to settle the divorce bill... "
EU = profligate, spendthrift gold-digger