Just wait until Supreme Leader gets in....the government will REALLLLLLLY be taxing all those who choose to stay, until the pips squeak.
Guffaw! "...all those who choose to stay..."
Outside the rarified world of PB, I can assure you the overwhelming majority across the country do not have a realistic way of choosing to live elsewhere in the world*.
(* Unless we include moving to another country in the EU, and Leavers doing their best to close that option down).
Even if we were still in the EU the extra numbers of Brits moving to mainland Europe for work would be minimal as most don't have the language skills to be employable.
Surprised numbers going to Canada is so low. Thriving oil and gas industry (and all the ancillary stuff like fire and police needed), plus lots of creative high tech industries have relocated from Seattle to Vancouver (due to tax incentives) are definitely in the wheel house of things Brits are known to be well skilled in. Plus pretty liberal immigration policy for those skilled in the in-demand sectors.
I would imagine the weather has something to do with it, especially the Canadian winters.
Florida, New South Wales or the Costa Del Sol hold more attraction for Brits on that front if they want a warmer climate
Is a fair point. Although Vancouver doesn't really get that cold in the winter (it is just quite rainy), and oil / gas workers probably likely to be used to less than perfect weather. Also summers in places like Toronto are bloody hot.
Only 36k a year going just surprised me, especially given the expansion in oil / gas paying big money.
Canada is a great country in many respects certainly and culturally probably more similar to the UK than the US is and as you say if you can withstand the winters you will get a hot summer in most of the country (Vancouver's climate Is not really that different from our own)
Please stop the foreigners out crap,for many people on the leave side who voted because of immigration was for control of our borders.
Surely we only need "control of our borders" to keep the foreigners out?
Not forgetting the option it gives us to expel some of our own citizens who can't evidence their residence throughout every one of the past 50-70 years!
Can any of us? Your Birth Certificate is not evidence of identity and many of us earned nothing before 16 to 20 years old and I certainly have never possessed a "Landing Card".
The passport office accepts birth certificates as proof of citizenship.
Which is more than the Registrar who issues them does - it says clearly on the bottom of Birth Certificates that they are not evidence of identity.
No, but it is evidence of citizenship, and is the only piece of evidence you need to get a new passport.
It cannot prove citizenship without some other piece of paperwork to link it to a person. Anyone can get anyone else's birth certificate. I have requested certificate for relatives and collected them.
Still, the system is what it is. One part says it is not sufficient whilst the other part accepts it.
Please stop the foreigners out crap,for many people on the leave side who voted because of immigration was for control of our borders.
Surely we only need "control of our borders" to keep the foreigners out?
Not forgetting the option it gives us to expel some of our own citizens who can't evidence their residence throughout every one of the past 50-70 years!
Can any of us? Your Birth Certificate is not evidence of identity and many of us earned nothing before 16 to 20 years old and I certainly have never possessed a "Landing Card".
The passport office accepts birth certificates as proof of citizenship.
Which is more than the Registrar who issues them does - it says clearly on the bottom of Birth Certificates that they are not evidence of identity.
No, but it is evidence of citizenship, and is the only piece of evidence you need to get a new passport.
It cannot prove citizenship without some other piece of paperwork to link it to a person. Anyone can get anyone else's birth certificate. I have requested certificate for relatives and collected them.
Still, the system is what it is. One part says it is not sufficient whilst the other part accepts it.
What a crazy way to organise things
Did you read the document? The passport office are clearly happy confirming your right to a passport based on a birth certificate. No other type of documentation is required.
Please stop the foreigners out crap,for many people on the leave side who voted because of immigration was for control of our borders.
Surely we only need "control of our borders" to keep the foreigners out?
Not forgetting the option it gives us to expel some of our own citizens who can't evidence their residence throughout every one of the past 50-70 years!
Can any of us? Your Birth Certificate is not evidence of identity and many of us earned nothing before 16 to 20 years old and I certainly have never possessed a "Landing Card".
The passport office accepts birth certificates as proof of citizenship.
Which is more than the Registrar who issues them does - it says clearly on the bottom of Birth Certificates that they are not evidence of identity.
No, but it is evidence of citizenship, and is the only piece of evidence you need to get a new passport.
It cannot prove citizenship without some other piece of paperwork to link it to a person. Anyone can get anyone else's birth certificate. I have requested certificate for relatives and collected them.
Still, the system is what it is. One part says it is not sufficient whilst the other part accepts it.
What a crazy way to organise things
Did you read the document? The passport office are clearly happy confirming your right to a passport based on a birth certificate. No other type of documentation is required.
That is not strictly true, another document is involved - the passport application form which must be verified by a "trusted" 3rd party who vouches for you personally. Judges, police, doctors, priests, etc.
Not a brilliant system, but short of tattooing kids at birth, it seems sufficient most of the time
Please stop the foreigners out crap,for many people on the leave side who voted because of immigration was for control of our borders.
Surely we only need "control of our borders" to keep the foreigners out?
Please Bev,you are better than this,don't stoop to their level.
I am sorry you think that, but I cannot see any other meaning to the phrase other than controlling who gets in. We cannot keep our own nationals out because they have a right to reside here. That only leaves foreigners.
As regards non-EU people, we already have the ability to decide who gets in and who does not so perhaps I can modify my original statement to "Surely we only need "control of our borders" to keep the EU foreigners out?"
I cannot see what else it can mean. Control of immigration means keeping most people out and selecting who gets in. What else can it possibly mean? What other interpretations are there?
The other interpretation is about control rather than quantity.
Australia has control over immigration while simultaneously having a higher rate of net immigration.
Please stop the foreigners out crap,for many people on the leave side who voted because of immigration was for control of our borders.
Surely we only need "control of our borders" to keep the foreigners out?
Not forgetting the option it gives us to expel some of our own citizens who can't evidence their residence throughout every one of the past 50-70 years!
Can any of us? Your Birth Certificate is not evidence of identity and many of us earned nothing before 16 to 20 years old and I certainly have never possessed a "Landing Card".
The passport office accepts birth certificates as proof of citizenship.
Which is more than the Registrar who issues them does - it says clearly on the bottom of Birth Certificates that they are not evidence of identity.
No, but it is evidence of citizenship, and is the only piece of evidence you need to get a new passport.
It cannot prove citizenship without some other piece of paperwork to link it to a person. Anyone can get anyone else's birth certificate. I have requested certificate for relatives and collected them.
Still, the system is what it is. One part says it is not sufficient whilst the other part accepts it.
What a crazy way to organise things
Did you read the document? The passport office are clearly happy confirming your right to a passport based on a birth certificate. No other type of documentation is required.
That is not strictly true, another document is involved - the passport application form which must be verified by a "trusted" 3rd party who vouches for you personally. Judges, police, doctors, priests, etc.
Not a brilliant system, but short of tattooing kids at birth, it seems sufficient most of the time
Ah yes, the list for that is quite extensive. I believe it can include your GP/dentist. I think it's wrong to assert that none of us on here would be able to prove their citizenship, since most will have a birth certificate.
Just wait until Supreme Leader gets in....the government will REALLLLLLLY be taxing all those who choose to stay, until the pips squeak.
Guffaw! "...all those who choose to stay..."
Outside the rarified world of PB, I can assure you the overwhelming majority across the country do not have a realistic way of choosing to live elsewhere in the world*.
(* Unless we include moving to another country in the EU, and Leavers doing their best to close that option down).
Maybe the Leavers need "control of the borders", not to keep foreigners out, but to keep us in. Sort of a British Berlin Wall scenario
Anyone else remember the BBC TV serial "1990", where a socialist government restricts emigration to stop "the brain drain"?
FPT, I have taken Peter's tip of £10 on a GE this year at 10/1.
I will certainly struggle to continue to support May if she caves in on the Customs Union. It goes against the basis of the whole Government's negotiating position for the last 16 months. She must ensure the UK is no longer bound by the Common Commercial Policy or the Common External Tariff.
I can see her parliamentary position unravelling very quickly if she doesn't because Parliament (be it the HoC and/or the HoL) voting against it would amount to a VoNC, in my opinion.
There's no negotiation. Surely you have realised that by now? It's take it or leave it. We could leave it, we do have a choice, but there are problems with that approach. Firstly the government decided to take it in December, so reversing that decision, which didn't do them any harm, would be disturbing. Not taking it will be very chaotic. In any case leaving it would probably just be taking it, delayed.
We'll take it.
No, I don't share your remarkable propensity for sophistry and confirmation bias. Your post is as ridiculously as it is inaccurate.
There is a negotiation, but May needlessly weakened her own parliamentary position through the election last year.
Of course there's a negotiation on the detail, but on the key points of which this is one, no. The EU has a system and if you want to hook in, you do it on its terms.
Do you think Mrs May would concede on the Customs Union if she thought she could negotiate out of it?
Just wait until Supreme Leader gets in....the government will REALLLLLLLY be taxing all those who choose to stay, until the pips squeak.
Guffaw! "...all those who choose to stay..."
Outside the rarified world of PB, I can assure you the overwhelming majority across the country do not have a realistic way of choosing to live elsewhere in the world*.
(* Unless we include moving to another country in the EU, and Leavers doing their best to close that option down).
Maybe the Leavers need "control of the borders", not to keep foreigners out, but to keep us in. Sort of a British Berlin Wall scenario
Anyone else remember the BBC TV serial "1990", where a socialist government restricts emigration to stop "the brain drain"?
We laugh, but the UK had a "brain drain" throughout the 1970s and even into the early 1980s. Ireland had a brain drain from about 1930 to 1990.
The funny bit is, though, that people worry that it might stunt future growth. (I know Stodge is concerned that people leaving Eastern European countries for jobs in the West will deal massive damage to the viability of those countries in the long term.)
But Ireland, following a multi-decade long brain drain, has been the greatest economic success story of the last 50 years. This is a country that was poorer than Northern Ireland, England and Scotland, with a GDP per capita half that of England at its low in the early 1970s, that's now a modern export oriented economy.
Just wait until Supreme Leader gets in....the government will REALLLLLLLY be taxing all those who choose to stay, until the pips squeak.
Guffaw! "...all those who choose to stay..."
Outside the rarified world of PB, I can assure you the overwhelming majority across the country do not have a realistic way of choosing to live elsewhere in the world*.
(* Unless we include moving to another country in the EU, and Leavers doing their best to close that option down).
Maybe the Leavers need "control of the borders", not to keep foreigners out, but to keep us in. Sort of a British Berlin Wall scenario
Anyone else remember the BBC TV serial "1990", where a socialist government restricts emigration to stop "the brain drain"?
We laugh, but the UK had a "brain drain" throughout the 1970s and even into the early 1980s. Ireland had a brain drain from about 1930 to 1990.
The funny bit is, though, that people worry that it might stunt future growth. (I know Stodge is concerned that people leaving Eastern European countries for jobs in the West will deal massive damage to the viability of those countries in the long term.)
But Ireland, following a multi-decade long brain drain, has been the greatest economic success story of the last 50 years. This is a country that was poorer than Northern Ireland, England and Scotland, with a GDP per capita half that of England at its low in the early 1970s, that's now a modern export oriented economy.
Perhaps the people with the means to leave a country during a brain drain are disproportionately those who are holding it back and so it helps create space for new thinking?
As was pointer out earlier the early ballot breakdown for Arizona 8th (http://www.arizona.vote/early-ballot-statistics.) strongly supports the narrative that the district is RED leaning, but that will give you the base numbers, but it won't give any indication of crossover voting (Rep voting Dem). For that we need to look at the two public poll, the OH predictive (+10 Rep), and the Emerson (+1 Dem).
Both have problems, they both possibly over sample better educated, and they take opposite view of the age distribution.
The OH predictive sample has 19% under 55's, and the emerson sample has 49% under 55's. I think – 35-40% would be more representative (early votes have 24.6% under 55 - with 30 – 35% still to vote on election day who will be decidedly younger).
There is another emerson poll out later today(Monday) and it will be interesting to see if the demographics change and how that effects the bottom line. The emerson sample had over 50% who had already voted and they had broken almost 50/50 Rep/Dem, but that may be due to their younger age distribution.
There is one last thing which could have an influence on the election day voting. Teachers in several RED states have been on strike recently. Arizona teachers are “walking out” next Thursday, and they have broad support of parents since it isn't just wages increases, but education budget increases they want. The younger voters on Tuesday will be the parents, rather than grand parents, and in the emerson poll, education was joint top with immigration, and those who chose education broke 67%/22% for the dems.
At the moment I rate this a 75%/25% Rep/Dems. Most likely a 4-8% rep win, but if the blue wave was to be a tsunami ….
Within the podcast they indicate that they're using the early voting breakdown of party returns to influence their turnout model. Hopefully later today they'll have the crosstabs available. But on the face of it a 6% win for the Republicans looks most likely. Will be interested to see how this effects the market.
Comments
Still, the system is what it is. One part says it is not sufficient whilst the other part accepts it.
What a crazy way to organise things
Not a brilliant system, but short of tattooing kids at birth, it seems sufficient most of the time
Australia has control over immigration while simultaneously having a higher rate of net immigration.
Mike Freer says Windrush has "absolutely nothing to do" with immigration policy introduced under Theresa May and David Cameron."
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-whip-dismisses-windrush-as-height-of-opportunism-and-hypocrisy-11343425
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayCsPZF1fY
Do you think Mrs May would concede on the Customs Union if she thought she could negotiate out of it?
The funny bit is, though, that people worry that it might stunt future growth. (I know Stodge is concerned that people leaving Eastern European countries for jobs in the West will deal massive damage to the viability of those countries in the long term.)
But Ireland, following a multi-decade long brain drain, has been the greatest economic success story of the last 50 years. This is a country that was poorer than Northern Ireland, England and Scotland, with a GDP per capita half that of England at its low in the early 1970s, that's now a modern export oriented economy.
Both have problems, they both possibly over sample better educated, and they take opposite view of the age distribution.
The OH predictive sample has 19% under 55's, and the emerson sample has 49% under 55's.
I think – 35-40% would be more representative (early votes have 24.6% under 55 - with 30 – 35% still to vote on election day who will be decidedly younger).
There is another emerson poll out later today(Monday) and it will be interesting to see if the demographics change and how that effects the bottom line. The emerson sample had over 50% who had already voted and they had broken almost 50/50 Rep/Dem, but that may be due to their younger age distribution.
There is one last thing which could have an influence on the election day voting. Teachers in several RED states have been on strike recently. Arizona teachers are “walking out” next Thursday, and they have broad support of parents since it isn't just wages increases, but education budget increases they want. The younger voters on Tuesday will be the parents, rather than grand parents, and in the emerson poll, education was joint top with immigration, and those who chose education broke 67%/22% for the dems.
At the moment I rate this a 75%/25% Rep/Dems. Most likely a 4-8% rep win, but if the blue wave was to be a tsunami ….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z560IZfVNS0 (podcast)
Within the podcast they indicate that they're using the early voting breakdown of party returns to influence their turnout model. Hopefully later today they'll have the crosstabs available. But on the face of it a 6% win for the Republicans looks most likely. Will be interested to see how this effects the market.