But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.
It’s deeper than that. Euroscepticism is particularly toxic to the British centre-right, and when it morphs into delegitimising our membership of the EU altogether it becomes fatal. Events are demonstrating in a brutally humiliating fashion that the people who believe our national interest would be best pursued outside the EU are simply wrong.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Has anybody told McD that City contribues £70b a year in tax.
Has he wargamed that declining massively in a hurry?
I guess he'll just print the difference.
He may well see that as a feature rather than a bug.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
No issue with that, but given the track record of the Home Office, they are going to cause more grief and not meet their aim.
It's so long ago since I last opened a bank account that I can't recall what checks were made at the time, but I am fairly certain that I didn't offer any real proof that I have a right to be in the UK. I won't be surprised if the chief lesson from this exercise is that there are many millions of people who opened accounts with what would now be considered inadequate checking.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
And they'll have no incentive to sort out the mistakes quickly.
Freezing of bank accounts also leads to lots of other secondary problems.
One of my friends had her bank account wrongly frozen for another reason.
Because she had a lot of direct debits, such as car insurance, the insurance company voided her insurance, which led to all sorts of problems, as she couldn't drive to work.
It also led the likes of EE and BT cutting her off, denying her the ability to make calls.
It isn't a minor inconvenience to have your bank account frozen.
Once it is frozen, you can't open another account with another bank, as the markers are stuck on your credit file until they are removed.
And I've even discussed about how you get your salary paid and pay your rent/mortgage.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Er! No, that answer is the traditional way of doing things, it is not what is happening now. For example, I can buy things using PayPal or one of the other platforms from any supplier anywhere in the world using funds transferred from my bank account. If PayPal is not available, one of the others will. It is the equivalent of whack a mole for the government.
But what is a currency? At its simplest, it 3 people agreeing a value on a token of some sort, whether a shell, pebble, a lump of metal or a piece of paper, to enable trade between them. If others, seeing the usefulness of the token, take up and use them, then you have a currency. Now, the catch 22, if people suddenly believe that the currency has no value, they will look elsewhere for another type of token that can be agreed on.
The problem with sterling (and to a far greater extent, the US $) is that there has been so much generated electronically, that no one really knows how much there is, who owns it, or who owes what to whoever, or where it is. The only reason that it is accepted is the public belief in it, in reality, the value of the £ and $ is non existent as they are not based on the value of anything tangible.
If the government tries to ban banks from transferring people's money or attempting to control their money, it will expose the weakness of the currency and then the national economy.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
How can they do 'immigration checks' on 50 million or so UK citizens who were born here? I have five bank and card accounts for them to pore over although I'm sure the Inland Revenue already does so, LOL.
If it includes 'extreme overstayers', it may hit >30,000 people who married or have lived with a UK citizen since before 1973. They didn't apply for residence or obtain UK nationality because the rules were more relaxed then, also I imagine retaining their existing nationality was an insurance policy against a breakup.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
Er! No, that answer is the traditional way of doing things, it is not what is happening now. For example, I can buy things using PayPal or one of the other platforms from any supplier anywhere in the world using funds transferred from my bank account. If PayPal is not available, one of the others will. It is the equivalent of whack a mole for the government.
I think the key to why you are wrong is contained in your own words: "using funds transferred from my bank account."
Of course, for the small number of people with the means and foresight to transfer money out of the UK's jurisdiction before exchange controls were imposed, that wouldn't be a problem, provided McDonnell's commissars don't discover that they've done so. But that will be a tiny number, and no different to what happened before electronic transfers.
It's really not hard: the pinch points are your bank account and your credit card accounts, both easily controlled by government regulation.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!
I have figured, thank you Joff.
You can be critical of a closed shop, protected and outdated working practices, and also of unrestricted immigration that doesn't have popular consent. And, of course, there are the cultural and social angles, as well as economic ones.
Like most things in life, these are all complex factors that need to be debated and traded off.
Who's to say Uber still wouldn't have established itself successfully in London if, say, we'd restricted EU net immigration to 75,000 per year over the last 10 years?
If you've read my posts recently, you'll see I've been critical of both black cabs, and some of the practices of Uber.
The fact that so many Uber drivers are low paid migrants surely tells its own story. What is clear, though, is that Uber shows it's not just metropolitan eltists who enjoy the benefits of immigration. What I don't get is why black cab drivers are less deserving of protection than plumbers, bricklayers and electricians. Are they less patriotic or something?
No issue with that, but given the track record of the Home Office, they are going to cause more grief and not meet their aim.
It's so long ago since I last opened a bank account that I can't recall what checks were made at the time, but I am fairly certain that I didn't offer any real proof that I have a right to be in the UK. I won't be surprised if the chief lesson from this exercise is that there are many millions of people who opened accounts with what would now be considered inadequate checking.
Up to quite recent, my father's bank account had been opened in 1971, with Midland Bank, he has a foreign sounding name.
You can see how his account might be frozen due to Home Office incompetence.
F1: as I mentioned, in rumour form, earlier, Gasly has replaced Kvyat.
The Russian's fall from grace has been swift. At the start of last season he was racing for Red Bull. Now he's preceded Palmer in (seemingly) departing the sport.
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
Hang on, a lot of the kind of intrusive interference we've been hearing about (including erroneous freezing of bank accounts) is due to over-zealous EU and US regulation:
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
True of course, but I always feel there's a default mode "to do" rather than "not to do".
Not doing has a lot of virtues. Hammond for instance is doing a great job not being McDonnell. I struggle to see what he could achieve that's better than "not being" at present. That's perfectly fine.
An example... the government might attempt seriously to address the pathetically low level of house building ?
It's not a particularly party political issue, but it has national salience. And it has the merit that spending on this could genuinely described as 'investment'.
Actually I'd accept that one! I did refer to this few days ago that I was hoping Hammond would do something in the budget.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Er! No, that answer is the traditional way of doing things, it is not what is happening now. For example, I can buy things using PayPal or one of the other platforms from any supplier anywhere in the world using funds transferred from my bank account. If PayPal is not available, one of the others will. It is the equivalent of whack a mole for the government.
But what is a currency? At its simplest, it 3 people agreeing a value on a token of some sort, whether a shell, pebble, a lump of metal or a piece of paper, to enable trade between them. If others, seeing the usefulness of the token, take up and use them, then you have a currency. Now, the catch 22, if people suddenly believe that the currency has no value, they will look elsewhere for another type of token that can be agreed on.
The problem with sterling (and to a far greater extent, the US $) is that there has been so much generated electronically, that no one really knows how much there is, who owns it, or who owes what to whoever, or where it is. The only reason that it is accepted is the public belief in it, in reality, the value of the £ and $ is non existent as they are not based on the value of anything tangible.
If the government tries to ban banks from transferring people's money or attempting to control their money, it will expose the weakness of the currency and then the national economy.
I believe that some form of exchange control was imposed in Cyprus during their banking crisis a few years ago? Not sure of the technical details but presumably a solution must have been found?
Many countries still have some form of exchange control.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
Macron in his speech today says that, "The Europe of the *28* cannot function like the Europe of the 6". Does he know something the British public doesn't?
Macron in his speech today says that, "The Europe of the *28* cannot function like the Europe of the 6". Does he know something the British public doesn't?
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
You and your family can still work abroad.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
The short answer is, exactly the same as the Tories`, only fairer, and more so. I hope that is perfectly clear. As does the Labour Party.
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
The short answer is, exactly the same as the Tories`, only fairer, and more so. I hope that is perfectly clear. As does the Labour Party.
More so = more Europe or more Exit? All Labour policies are fairer than Tory policies. Lovely clarity in that.
Mr. NorthWales, you must be mistaken. There is no anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Baroness Chakrabarti's report said so. Please report to Re-Education Camp Twenty-Seven for your wrongthink to be corrected.
Sky are really having a go on labour's anti-semitism this morning.
I was walking past the Socialist Worker table on Saturday. As usual it was a combination of "kick the Tories out" and "Freedom for Palestine". It's been like that for years. There is an obsession with Israel and their somewhat brutal treatment of those they conquered in 1967 which is hard to fathom, there have been many more brutalities over the last 50 years, but this is the tradition that Corbyn has lived in all his adult life.
Of course it is possible to disapprove of Israel without being anti Semitic but it must be increasingly more difficult as the years go by. For a start hating Jews more locally who are even aware of your existence must be a temptation. If they look to stand up for Israel it becomes even easier. The far left have got themselves in a difficult place on this.
They certainly have. But this didn't happen by accident. There has been a long tradition in parts of the Left - not all of it, I hasten to add - of hostility to Jews. This has not usually been in the dominant strain of the social democratic left we have been used to but it has been in the strain represented by Corbyn et al. It has been fed by a number of factors: hatred of capitalism and the presumed role of Jews in this, hatred of colonialism and viewing Israel as a Western colonial power, a desire to be on the side of oppressed peoples without inquiring too closely or at alll into whether they too are oppressors or whether they too may be racist etc, a Marxist hatred of Jews, fed by the views and policies of the Soviet Union.
And so we end up with a Labour Party Conference in 2017 where members are considering expelling Jewish organisations and debating the Holocaust (what sort of debate, one wonders - whether it happened, maybe?).
For a party which is so quick to call everyone else Nazis or Fascists, it is curiously - and depressingly - blind to the extent it adopts Nazi tropes as its own while still - absurdly IMO - purporting to claim the moral high ground. The current Labour party is now a comfortable home for anti-Semites, including those who hide their anti-Semitism by calling it anti-Zionism (if one wants to criticise Israel criticise Israel. There is no need to attack Jews or use the term "Zionists" as @SouthamObserver has so eloquently said on numerous occasions). It is close to being institutionally anti-Semitic.
This ought to be a matter of great regret and shame for decent people on the Left, for all of us really, especially if such a party really does form the next government
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Hang on, why should a bank have to pay out when it has implemented the regulations and applied the data it's been given? I'm afraid that buck-passing will (and should) be inevitable if it's applied. Without primary legislation, I could well see a scheme that requires one party to compensate when a second party is at fault being challenged in the courts.
Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
It's whatever you'd like it to be. It's also various other, and contradictory, things.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
You and your family can still work abroad.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
Indeed. I have lived and worked all over the world and, except for a couple of particularly dodgy countries the differences between EU and non EU is very slight.
Hang on, why should a bank have to pay out when it has implemented the regulations and applied the data it's been given? I'm afraid that buck-passing will (and should) be inevitable if it's applied. Without primary legislation, I could well see a scheme that requires one party to compensate when a second party is at fault being challenged in the courts.
Because otherwise the bank will do nothing, or not bother to badger the Home Office to find out what the hell is going on. There has to be some way of injecting absolute urgency into sorting out mistakes.
Bear in mind that the poor customer is completely helpless in this:
HSBC won’t tell the Langleys why they have been frozen out; nor would they say anything when the Guardian intervened. To be fair to HSBC, it is in an invidious position, because if it explains why it has frozen an account it may fall foul of “tipping off” rules designed to prevent criminals and terrorists from knowing someone is on their tail.
The Langley’s nightmare began in Sainsbury’s, when Marie’s debit card was declined as she tried to pay. She went to a cash machine, only to find that transaction was also refused. Stranded with her shopping unpaid for, she called her husband. Worried that their account may have been hit by fraud, he immediately tried to log on to HSBC online. He then discovered that their joint account was inaccessible.
He called HSBC, and only after lengthy badgering of call centre staff did the bank admit the account had been frozen. “Apparently a letter, which I never received, had been sent out two months previously warning me that the account was to be closed, but no one would tell me the reason,” says Shaun.
(It's also grimly hilarious that the banks can't tell you anything in case it tips off a criminal that someone is on their tail. You'd have thought that finding the bank account closed might be a bit of a hint!)
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
You and your family can still work abroad.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
No, but it is about to become a whole lot more complicated and more difficult. Though not for Mr Alanbrooke and his family, thankfully.
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
The short answer is, exactly the same as the Tories`, only fairer, and more so. I hope that is perfectly clear. As does the Labour Party.
Unilateral recognition of EU residents rights is one significant difference, as is willingness to consider long term customs union or single market. Of course this would restrict our abilities to have exchange controls to take back control of our sovereignty.
< I am doubtful even the worst excesses of Corbyn and McDonnell could even begin to provoke the amount of damage on the country as the Tory wreckers have done with Brexit.
Exactly.
I am a long-standing Labour moderate, I have been in the party since the 1970s and remember well the battles against the left the last time round in the 80s and early 90s. I have grave doubts about Corbyn and McDonnell in policy terms and also about their competence.
But they are proving to be electorally much more popular than anyone expected. Corbyn has shown an ability to moderate his previous positions to widen his appeal, most recently in the acceptance of an EEA "transition" period, which about 95% of Labour members hope will become permanent. The policies that have been unveiled this week, whilst further to the left than the new Labour years, are not a reprise of the 1980s - they are nowhere near as extreme as the Alternative Economic Strategy was then. And doorstep encounters with voters give me the strong impression that people do not want more of the same - they are tired of identikit posh boy politicians like Cameron (and Miliband) - a great deal of Corbyn's appeal lies in his ordinariness and in the fact that he is completely unassociated with what is now seen as the failures of the past two decades.
Labour moderates have neither the leaders or the policies to challenge the Corbynites. And, crucially, there is no evidence that a moderate leader would be more electorally successful. The conventional wisdom that elections are always won from the centre no longer holds IMO. And the example of the SDP shows that even a well-supported breakaway by senior figures is not likely to advance the moderate cause.
For most Labour party moderates (and most Corbynites as well) the overriding objective is to ensure the softest possible Brexit, and ideally reverse the process completely. This will not be done by droning on about the single market on every conceivable occasion or by premature calls for a second referendum. And it certainly won't be done by splitting the Labour Party and leaving the field to the Tories. The fact is that the country faces a choice between the divisive and destructive incompetence of the government and a Labour Party which, whilst far from perfect, just might offer a way out of the ghastly mess in which we find ourselves. The choice we face is certain disaster with the Tories or the possibly of something better with Corbyn. So Corbyn it will be.
I thought Corbyn wanted to leave the Single Market and EU rules precisely because it will allow him to carry out his economic policies which EU rules would prevent.
How is this consistent with your claim that voting Labour would ensure the "softest possible Brexit"?
Or are Labour moderates being deluded in thinking this?
McDonnell on video talking about how their radical agenda will be like nothing seen before and outlining how he would try to mitigrate runs on the pound and the flight of capital.
The fact he is openly admitting this in a fringe meeting demonstrates just how far he wants to take UK down the Venezeula route.
Scary
Luckily from his point of view if we've left the EU he'll be able to reintroduce exchange controls. Just like old times.
Try telling the young that they need permission from the government to take their own money abroad for a holiday and that there is a limit to how much they can spend.
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
The short answer is, exactly the same as the Tories`, only fairer, and more so. I hope that is perfectly clear. As does the Labour Party.
Unilateral recognition of EU residents rights is one significant difference, as is willingness to consider long term customs union or single market. Of course this would restrict our abilities to have exchange controls to take back control of our sovereignty.
Hang on, why should a bank have to pay out when it has implemented the regulations and applied the data it's been given? I'm afraid that buck-passing will (and should) be inevitable if it's applied. Without primary legislation, I could well see a scheme that requires one party to compensate when a second party is at fault being challenged in the courts.
Because otherwise the bank will do nothing, or not bother to badger the Home Office to find out what the hell is going on. There has to be some way of injecting absolute urgency into sorting out mistakes.
Bear in mind that the poor customer is completely helpless in this:
No, sorry, I don't accept that. If the bank has made an error then fine, it should compensate but if it's down to the government putting the wrong details on its list then the bank shouldn't be penalised twice (the imposition of the rules is itself an additional burden to doing business).
And, as I said, i suspect such rules, unless authorised by explicit legislation, would be illegal.
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
The short answer is, exactly the same as the Tories`, only fairer, and more so. I hope that is perfectly clear. As does the Labour Party.
Unilateral recognition of EU residents rights is one significant difference, as is willingness to consider long term customs union or single market. Of course this would restrict our abilities to have exchange controls to take back control of our sovereignty.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
What will happen is that UK citizens will give money to their relatives to hold in their own names, in trust.
I have cousins in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that I trust, plus an Uncle in the USA, and a relative in Bulgaria I also trust.
Or get citizenship of an EU state and open accounts in that state.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
You and your family can still work abroad.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
No, but it is about to become a whole lot more complicated and more difficult. Though not for Mr Alanbrooke and his family, thankfully.
More complicated is not taken away, even if one feels it unfair. And I've never worked abroad.
I thought Corbyn wanted to leave the Single Market and EU rules precisely because it will allow him to carry out his economic policies which EU rules would prevent.
How is this consistent with your claim that voting Labour would ensure the "softest possible Brexit"?
Or are Labour moderates being deluded in thinking this?
Corbyn was, of course, a 1970s anti-marketeer (as we called them in those days). But he has moved away from that position for tactical reasons and because he knows that the party membership, and his own supporters, are overwhelmingly opposed to a hard Brexit. The internal party campaign for free movement is run entirely by momentum supporters.
The combination of internal party pressure and the realities of trying to deliver Brexit will push him further over the next few months. Labour's positioning on the Brexit issue has been unexpectedly deft recently - it has effectively signed up to the EEA option, which is the only practicable alternative to the cliff edge. This is said, of course, to be "transitional" but once we are there I think the chances of "transitioning" any further are slim, if only because the EU27 would have no incentive to offer the UK acceptable exit deal.
I believe Turkey, Iran and Iraq are united in not recognising the referendum because it 'will cause instability in the region'. My question would be how the f*ck could you tell?
I believe Turkey, Iran and Iraq are united in not recognising the referendum because it 'will cause instability in the region'. My question would be how the f*ck could you tell?
A solid point. I guess it's particularly unstable instability?
Mr. Divvie, that's only the official reason. Iraq doesn't want to lose oil, Turkey doesn't want to encourage Kurdish independence, and I heard on the news Iran wants direct access/control across northern Iraq to influence Syria.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
You and your family can still work abroad.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
No, but it is about to become a whole lot more complicated and more difficult. Though not for Mr Alanbrooke and his family, thankfully.
More complicated is not taken away, even if one feels it unfair. And I've never worked abroad.
My right to live and work in 27 European countries, and to all intents and purposes be treated - at a minimum - as if I were a local is going to be taken away.
Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
It's akin to a hooker on crack: anything you want, baby....
Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
It's akin to a hooker on crack: anything you want, baby....
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!
I have figured, thank you Joff.
You can be critical of a closed shop, protected and outdated working practices, and also of unrestricted immigration that doesn't have popular consent. And, of course, there are the cultural and social angles, as well as economic ones.
Like most things in life, these are all complex factors that need to be debated and traded off.
Who's to say Uber still wouldn't have established itself successfully in London if, say, we'd restricted EU net immigration to 75,000 per year over the last 10 years?
If you've read my posts recently, you'll see I've been critical of both black cabs, and some of the practices of Uber.
The fact that so many Uber drivers are low paid migrants surely tells its own story. What is clear, though, is that Uber shows it's not just metropolitan eltists who enjoy the benefits of immigration. What I don't get is why black cab drivers are less deserving of protection than plumbers, bricklayers and electricians. Are they less patriotic or something?
For a start, black cabs pretty much operate a closed shop, with fixed rates, and a buggins turn approach to hailing cabs - woe betide you if you try and get in the cab that's not 1st in the queue. That doesn't happen with tradesman - you choose.
If migration was restricted, Uber would have to charge a bit more, and pay its drivers a bit more, but there would still be competition.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Am I right in thinking that this (compensation) is your own pleasant nostrum, and not actually government policy ?
'Fraid so.
I am unsurprised.
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra... “We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
It all adds up. Bit by bit, we are making the UK ever-less attractive for those whose skills are in demand. We are becoming best-in-class at self-harm.
so when are you leaving or are your skills not in demand ? :-)
I am a UK citizen. You voted to restrict the rights of me and my children to live and work abroad, so it's unlikely I'll be leaving. Luckily, you and your family hold onto your rights to do that. So at least you have the choices you decided others shouldn't have. Phew!
You and your family can still work abroad.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
No, but it is about to become a whole lot more complicated and more difficult. Though not for Mr Alanbrooke and his family, thankfully.
More complicated is not taken away, even if one feels it unfair. And I've never worked abroad.
My right to live and work in 27 European countries, and to all intents and purposes be treated - at a minimum - as if I were a local is going to be taken away.
I never asked for EU citizenship, and never wanted it. Indeed, I reject the very concept.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
What will happen is that UK citizens will give money to their relatives to hold in their own names, in trust.
I have cousins in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that I trust, plus an Uncle in the USA, and a relative in Bulgaria I also trust.
Or get citizenship of an EU state and open accounts in that state.
Perhaps. But, no thank you.
I have no desire to be associated or taint myself with the current regime that Juncker and Verhofstadht advocate.
Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
It's akin to a hooker on crack: anything you want, baby....
Wheras the Government have it all in hand!!
I remain confident there will be a happy ending....
On the topic of the economy, Corbyn and McDonnell made a huge mistake today with regard to the Pound. Pre Blair, Labour victories at general elections tended to lead to a run on the Pound and a flight of capital. That is to be expected. The City is Tory. Corbyn and McDonnell's mistake is to talk about it, to acknowledge that their election will lead to a fall in the Pound/flight of capital thus putting the idea in the head of swing voters that Labour policies will be disliked by business. Another example of the political ineptitude of the current Labour leadership.
Comments
Life will become slightly more irksome for many - seriously so for the unlucky few - and the government spokespersons will carry on with the mantra...
“We are developing an immigration system which is fair to people who are here legally, but firm with those who break the rules. Everyone in society can play their part in tackling illegal migration..."
One of my friends had her bank account wrongly frozen for another reason.
Because she had a lot of direct debits, such as car insurance, the insurance company voided her insurance, which led to all sorts of problems, as she couldn't drive to work.
It also led the likes of EE and BT cutting her off, denying her the ability to make calls.
It isn't a minor inconvenience to have your bank account frozen.
Once it is frozen, you can't open another account with another bank, as the markers are stuck on your credit file until they are removed.
And I've even discussed about how you get your salary paid and pay your rent/mortgage.
But what is a currency? At its simplest, it 3 people agreeing a value on a token of some sort, whether a shell, pebble, a lump of metal or a piece of paper, to enable trade between them. If others, seeing the usefulness of the token, take up and use them, then you have a currency. Now, the catch 22, if people suddenly believe that the currency has no value, they will look elsewhere for another type of token that can be agreed on.
The problem with sterling (and to a far greater extent, the US $) is that there has been so much generated electronically, that no one really knows how much there is, who owns it, or who owes what to whoever, or where it is. The only reason that it is accepted is the public belief in it, in reality, the value of the £ and $ is non existent as they are not based on the value of anything tangible.
If the government tries to ban banks from transferring people's money or attempting to control their money, it will expose the weakness of the currency and then the national economy.
If it includes 'extreme overstayers', it may hit >30,000 people who married or have lived with a UK citizen since before 1973. They didn't apply for residence or obtain UK nationality because the rules were more relaxed then, also I imagine retaining their existing nationality was an insurance policy against a breakup.
What's worse ... Gestapo May or the Dementia Tax?
Of course, for the small number of people with the means and foresight to transfer money out of the UK's jurisdiction before exchange controls were imposed, that wouldn't be a problem, provided McDonnell's commissars don't discover that they've done so. But that will be a tiny number, and no different to what happened before electronic transfers.
It's really not hard: the pinch points are your bank account and your credit card accounts, both easily controlled by government regulation.
You can see how his account might be frozen due to Home Office incompetence.
F1: as I mentioned, in rumour form, earlier, Gasly has replaced Kvyat.
The Russian's fall from grace has been swift. At the start of last season he was racing for Red Bull. Now he's preceded Palmer in (seemingly) departing the sport.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41397848
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/03/hsbc-derisking-account-frozen-marie-shaun-langley
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/small-businesses-cry-foul-as-hsbc-freezes-accounts-over-money-laundering-fears-327slmql6
So I'm not sure we're best-in-class.
Many countries still have some form of exchange control.
Just get a job, fill in the paper work, get it approved and you are able to do it. Living and working in an EU country was not paper free and admin free before Brexit and it isn't post Brexit either.
All Labour policies are fairer than Tory policies.
Lovely clarity in that.
And so we end up with a Labour Party Conference in 2017 where members are considering expelling Jewish organisations and debating the Holocaust (what sort of debate, one wonders - whether it happened, maybe?).
For a party which is so quick to call everyone else Nazis or Fascists, it is curiously - and depressingly - blind to the extent it adopts Nazi tropes as its own while still - absurdly IMO - purporting to claim the moral high ground. The current Labour party is now a comfortable home for anti-Semites, including those who hide their anti-Semitism by calling it anti-Zionism (if one wants to criticise Israel criticise Israel. There is no need to attack Jews or use the term "Zionists" as @SouthamObserver has so eloquently said on numerous occasions). It is close to being institutionally anti-Semitic.
This ought to be a matter of great regret and shame for decent people on the Left, for all of us really, especially if such a party really does form the next government
https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/912687186222419968
Bear in mind that the poor customer is completely helpless in this:
HSBC won’t tell the Langleys why they have been frozen out; nor would they say anything when the Guardian intervened. To be fair to HSBC, it is in an invidious position, because if it explains why it has frozen an account it may fall foul of “tipping off” rules designed to prevent criminals and terrorists from knowing someone is on their tail.
The Langley’s nightmare began in Sainsbury’s, when Marie’s debit card was declined as she tried to pay. She went to a cash machine, only to find that transaction was also refused. Stranded with her shopping unpaid for, she called her husband. Worried that their account may have been hit by fraud, he immediately tried to log on to HSBC online. He then discovered that their joint account was inaccessible.
He called HSBC, and only after lengthy badgering of call centre staff did the bank admit the account had been frozen. “Apparently a letter, which I never received, had been sent out two months previously warning me that the account was to be closed, but no one would tell me the reason,” says Shaun.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/03/hsbc-derisking-account-frozen-marie-shaun-langley
(It's also grimly hilarious that the banks can't tell you anything in case it tips off a criminal that someone is on their tail. You'd have thought that finding the bank account closed might be a bit of a hint!)
How is this consistent with your claim that voting Labour would ensure the "softest possible Brexit"?
Or are Labour moderates being deluded in thinking this?
http://brexitcentral.com/labour-mp-jeremy-corbyn-not-changed-hostility-eu/
And, as I said, i suspect such rules, unless authorised by explicit legislation, would be illegal.
The combination of internal party pressure and the realities of trying to deliver Brexit will push him further over the next few months. Labour's positioning on the Brexit issue has been unexpectedly deft recently - it has effectively signed up to the EEA option, which is the only practicable alternative to the cliff edge. This is said, of course, to be "transitional" but once we are there I think the chances of "transitioning" any further are slim, if only because the EU27 would have no incentive to offer the UK acceptable exit deal.
https://twitter.com/RozaSalih/status/912601557618843649
I believe Turkey, Iran and Iraq are united in not recognising the referendum because it 'will cause instability in the region'. My question would be how the f*ck could you tell?
TM resorts to desperate measures in BREXIT negotiations!!!
NEW THREAD
If migration was restricted, Uber would have to charge a bit more, and pay its drivers a bit more, but there would still be competition.
You won't be getting any apology from me.
I have no desire to be associated or taint myself with the current regime that Juncker and Verhofstadht advocate.
I want to be well rid.
Pre Blair, Labour victories at general elections tended to lead to a run on the Pound and a flight of capital. That is to be expected. The City is Tory.
Corbyn and McDonnell's mistake is to talk about it, to acknowledge that their election will lead to a fall in the Pound/flight of capital thus putting the idea in the head of swing voters that Labour policies will be disliked by business.
Another example of the political ineptitude of the current Labour leadership.