That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
That was cool. Quite different in approach to SpaceX but with similar results of getting everything back to Earth afterwards.
Yeah, it's cool. And it'll probably be taking people up for trips later this year: a very expensive and high ten-minute trip! And no, I don't want to go, even if I could afford it ...
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
That was cool. Quite different in approach to SpaceX but with similar results of getting everything back to Earth afterwards.
Yeah, it's cool. And it'll probably be taking people up for trips later this year: a very expensive and high ten-minute trip! And no, I don't want to go, even if I could afford it ...
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
I think she will survive, but agree Javid is the replacement. Although BF punters think Hunt (small market - Javid not even on it)
I did wonder about Hunt because we know the PM tried to shift him from health, and the Home Office might well tempt him. But I'm not sure promotion was what she had in mind.
That was cool. Quite different in approach to SpaceX but with similar results of getting everything back to Earth afterwards.
Yeah, it's cool. And it'll probably be taking people up for trips later this year: a very expensive and high ten-minute trip! And no, I don't want to go, even if I could afford it ...
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
Ummm... Do you know how expensive?
As far as I'm aware they haven't said yet, but I'd expect little change from $200k.
Although if Virgin ever get Spaceship 2 working, there should be some interesting choices and competition: do you want to experience weightlessness in a rocket plane or a capsule?
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Re the postscript - would Javid take the Home Office? Only one HS has gone directly on to be PM in the last 150 years (and only four in total, one of them thirty years later). He's clearly ambitious. Would he really take what has almost always proven a political graveyard? I'm doubtful. If it were the Treasury he'd bite May's hand off.
I'm also intrigued that Rudd is being so heavily briefed against. It almost looks personal rather than political. If so, May will be very loath to part with her. Moreover, since New Labour and Brown, Byers and Blair himself a precedent has been set that Ministers who mislead the House in error (Blair) through forgetfulness (Brown) or even because they are dishonest morons who lie, cheat and take money not because they need to but because it's in their nature (Byers) don't actually have to resign.
That's a fairly damning indictment of the standards of old Mr Whiter than White, and I think Rudd should go. I'm just sceptical if she will.
Edit - looking at the time Byers misled the House 15 years ago, what's really amusing in this context is the reaction of his Conservative Shadow:
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
But we all know that the economy depends upon cheap, non-skilled labour, so I suspect that if they introduced such a scheme then bar tender, warehouse operative and fruit picker would suddenly be given a more illustrious status.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Win-win?
Unless I suppose her replacement is the Jezaster...
"The optics of a non white son of a immigrant Windrush generation bus driver trying to sort out the Windrush deportations mess are appealing."
Isn't that the sort of tokenism that demeans politics? If he gets the job that is fine if it is on ability. If he gets it because he is an ethnic minority with an interesting cover story I am not so sure it is a good idea. People are heartily sick of the Blairite/Cameron spin on things - they take us all for mugs who cannot see the smoke and mirrors. I think we live in a post spin age, Cameron/Osborne taunted Brown about him being PM in a digital age but having analogue presentation skills. I think many of todays politicians and commentators have a similar disconnect. The game has changed and those who seek to lead do not even notice the difference!
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
Re the postscript - would Javid take the Home Office? Only one HS has gone directly on to be PM in the last 150 years (and only four in total, one of them thirty years later). He's clearly ambitious. Would he really take what has almost always proven a political graveyard? I'm doubtful. If it were the Treasury he'd bite May's hand off.
I'm also intrigued that Rudd is being so heavily briefed against. It almost looks personal rather than political. If so, May will be very loath to part with her. Moreover, since New Labour and Brown, Byers and Blair himself a precedent has been set that Ministers who mislead the House in error (Blair) through forgetfulness (Brown) or even because they are dishonest morons who lie, cheat and take money not because they need to but because it's in their nature (Byers) don't actually have to resign.
That's a fairly damning indictment of the standards of old Mr Whiter than White, and I think Rudd should go. I'm just sceptical if she will.
The logic for him taking the Home Office job was that Theresa May could fall within days (over the customs union for example) and Javid won't be in office long enough to get doomed at the Home Department. But by being Home Secretary he becomes a credible contender to be PM if May goes in the next few months.
"The optics of a non white son of a immigrant Windrush generation bus driver trying to sort out the Windrush deportations mess are appealing."
Isn't that the sort of tokenism that demeans politics? If he gets the job that is fine if it is on ability. If he gets it because he is an ethnic minority with an interesting cover story I am not so sure it is a good idea. People are heartily sick of the Blairite/Cameron spin on things - they take us all for mugs who cannot see the smoke and mirrors. I think we live in a post spin age, Cameron/Osborne taunted Brown about him being PM in a digital age but having analogue presentation skills. I think many of todays politicians and commentators have a similar disconnect. The game has changed and those who seek to lead do not even notice the difference!
It would be tokenism if he wasn't qualified for the job, he is eminently qualified to be Home Secretary.
"The optics of a non white son of a immigrant Windrush generation bus driver trying to sort out the Windrush deportations mess are appealing."
Isn't that the sort of tokenism that demeans politics? If he gets the job that is fine if it is on ability. If he gets it because he is an ethnic minority with an interesting cover story I am not so sure it is a good idea. People are heartily sick of the Blairite/Cameron spin on things - they take us all for mugs who cannot see the smoke and mirrors. I think we live in a post spin age, Cameron/Osborne taunted Brown about him being PM in a digital age but having analogue presentation skills. I think many of todays politicians and commentators have a similar disconnect. The game has changed and those who seek to lead do not even notice the difference!
It would be tokenism if he wasn't qualified for the job, he is eminently qualified to be Home Secretary.
He's not been a successful Minister but has too big a following within the party to be totally ignored?
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
Is there much 'cash in hand' work in Britain these days? When I was a benefit-fraud investigator in the 1990s I can't recall a single fraudster who wasn't on the books.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
Highly skilled migrants (such as Doctors and Nurses) require continuing automatic recognition of EEA qualifications as exists at present. That would seem sensible, but is a nessecary condition.
Presumably reciprococity in terms of work in the EU could be agreed, but for retirees may be more problematic, unless that too was mutual.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
Is there much 'cash in hand' work in Britain these days? When I was a benefit-fraud investigator in the 1990s I can't recall a single fraudster who wasn't on the books.
Most builders offer discounts for cash in hand, I believe.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
Is there much 'cash in hand' work in Britain these days? When I was a benefit-fraud investigator in the 1990s I can't recall a single fraudster who wasn't on the books.
Most builders offer discounts for cash in hand, I believe.
Ah, you mean the self-employed on the fiddle. I thought you meant employers paying cash in hand to avoid NI contributions, insurance etc.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
Is there much 'cash in hand' work in Britain these days? When I was a benefit-fraud investigator in the 1990s I can't recall a single fraudster who wasn't on the books.
Most builders offer discounts for cash in hand, I believe.
Ah, you mean the self-employed on the fiddle. I thought you meant employers paying cash in hand to avoid NI contributions, insurance etc.
I think that happens in the building trade too. Are there eight guys on the site or six?
Sajid Javid is doing a good job as the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and is currently in the middle of some serious leasehold/property management reform. I would really rather he finished what he started!
If Amber Rudd does go, her replacement will be someone ldesigned to douse things down but keep on the track set by Theresa May and loyal. Sajid Javid is possible but I would have thought Esther McVey or David Livingston were more likely.
Sajid Javid is doing a good job as the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and is currently in the middle of some serious leasehold/property management reform. I would really rather he finished what he started!
Since when does ministerial competence and continuity outplay political expediency...
Sajid Javid is one of the very few Tories that could turn my head to the blues
That was cool. Quite different in approach to SpaceX but with similar results of getting everything back to Earth afterwards.
Yeah, it's cool. And it'll probably be taking people up for trips later this year: a very expensive and high ten-minute trip! And no, I don't want to go, even if I could afford it ...
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
Sajid Javid is doing a good job as the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and is currently in the middle of some serious leasehold/property management reform. I would really rather he finished what he started!
Since when does ministerial competence and continuity outplay political expediency...
Sajid Javid is one of the very few Tories that could turn my head to the blues
That was cool. Quite different in approach to SpaceX but with similar results of getting everything back to Earth afterwards.
Yeah, it's cool. And it'll probably be taking people up for trips later this year: a very expensive and high ten-minute trip! And no, I don't want to go, even if I could afford it ...
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
Are you saying that because of illegal immigration targets or you see her as a threat to Brexit
You may be right but on balance I think she will stay in post
O/T Big G...but as much as I love what Man City have done this year, the remaining games at the top of the table have all the feel of friendlies..The Utd/Arsenal match had the intensity of a Theresa May speech....
Re the postscript - would Javid take the Home Office? Only one HS has gone directly on to be PM in the last 150 years (and only four in total, one of them thirty years later). He's clearly ambitious. Would he really take what has almost always proven a political graveyard? I'm doubtful. If it were the Treasury he'd bite May's hand off.
I'm also intrigued that Rudd is being so heavily briefed against. It almost looks personal rather than political. If so, May will be very loath to part with her. Moreover, since New Labour and Brown, Byers and Blair himself a precedent has been set that Ministers who mislead the House in error (Blair) through forgetfulness (Brown) or even because they are dishonest morons who lie, cheat and take money not because they need to but because it's in their nature (Byers) don't actually have to resign.
That's a fairly damning indictment of the standards of old Mr Whiter than White, and I think Rudd should go. I'm just sceptical if she will.
Edit - looking at the time Byers misled the House 15 years ago, what's really amusing in this context is the reaction of his Conservative Shadow:
And a great quote... “This latest revelation suggests (Mr Byers/insert name as applicable) either misled Parliament, the press and the public, or that he has no grip on his/her department. "Either way (s)he must now come to the House of Commons and answer allegations that (s)he misled MPs."
Are you saying that because of illegal immigration targets or you see her as a threat to Brexit
You may be right but on balance I think she will stay in post
O/T Big G...but as much as I love what Man City have done this year, the remaining games at the top of the table have all the feel of friendlies..The Utd/Arsenal match had the intensity of a Theresa May speech....
It was poor but the result puts Utd in the champions league and 4 points out of the next 9 gives them runners up with only Brighton and West Ham away and Watford at home
That was cool. Quite different in approach to SpaceX but with similar results of getting everything back to Earth afterwards.
Yeah, it's cool. And it'll probably be taking people up for trips later this year: a very expensive and high ten-minute trip! And no, I don't want to go, even if I could afford it ...
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
Ummm... Do you know how expensive?
I believe Bezos has offered Trump a free seat....
Is that a single or a return?
I think they’re planning to recover the launch vehicle, but there’s always the possibility of an EVA...
Rudd goes over Windrush the spotlight goes straight onto May - who after all is the person who was responsible. Rudd has done a stellar job taking the flack for the PM but the absurdity of Tory MPs defending lie after lie after lie cant go on, no matter how much they want to avoid the likely civil war
Under proposals to be unveiled in Brussels this week by Guenther Oettinger, the EU’s budget commissioner, Eastern EU states like Poland and Hungary could feel a financial squeeze if they were deemed to have failed to live up to the founding values of the EU.
Rudd goes over Windrush the spotlight goes straight onto May - who after all is the person who was responsible. Rudd has done a stellar job taking the flack for the PM but the absurdity of Tory MPs defending lie after lie after lie cant go on, no matter how much they want to avoid the likely civil war
Stephen Byers managed a month. I think Rudd will be similar.
Brown managed 13 years of course, but he was quite exceptionally limpet like!
Re the postscript - would Javid take the Home Office? Only one HS has gone directly on to be PM in the last 150 years (and only four in total, one of them thirty years later). He's clearly ambitious. Would he really take what has almost always proven a political graveyard? I'm doubtful. If it were the Treasury he'd bite May's hand off.
I'm also intrigued that Rudd is being so heavily briefed against. It almost looks personal rather than political. If so, May will be very loath to part with her. Moreover, since New Labour and Brown, Byers and Blair himself a precedent has been set that Ministers who mislead the House in error (Blair) through forgetfulness (Brown) or even because they are dishonest morons who lie, cheat and take money not because they need to but because it's in their nature (Byers) don't actually have to resign.
That's a fairly damning indictment of the standards of old Mr Whiter than White, and I think Rudd should go. I'm just sceptical if she will.
Edit - looking at the time Byers misled the House 15 years ago, what's really amusing in this context is the reaction of his Conservative Shadow:
And a great quote... “This latest revelation suggests (Mr Byers/insert name as applicable) either misled Parliament, the press and the public, or that he has no grip on his/her department. "Either way (s)he must now come to the House of Commons and answer allegations that (s)he misled MPs."
Do you think the Conservative Shadow May have changed her views?
Under proposals to be unveiled in Brussels this week by Guenther Oettinger, the EU’s budget commissioner, Eastern EU states like Poland and Hungary could feel a financial squeeze if they were deemed to have failed to live up to the founding values of the EU.
The EU is run like many golf clubs, there is an illusion of democracy and a whole host of commitiees, but ultimately all important decisions are taken by a very small cabal of people and they fix it so it is nearly impossible to remove them from their positions.
Under proposals to be unveiled in Brussels this week by Guenther Oettinger, the EU’s budget commissioner, Eastern EU states like Poland and Hungary could feel a financial squeeze if they were deemed to have failed to live up to the founding values of the EU.
What would they say about a country where the security services spent their time harassing the opposition? Although the PM at the time knew absolutely nothing about it, honestly he didn't.
Under proposals to be unveiled in Brussels this week by Guenther Oettinger, the EU’s budget commissioner, Eastern EU states like Poland and Hungary could feel a financial squeeze if they were deemed to have failed to live up to the founding values of the EU.
A busy weekend and I'm still catching up with things.
On matters Korean, why has Kim Yong-Il come to the negotiating table ? I've read two wildly differing hypotheses:
a) he has his nuclear deterrent so has no real fear of attack from the US or China. As a result, he can show diplomatic largesse to his neighbours from a position of strength while Washington will adapt to Pyonygang having nuclear weapons just as it did when first Communist China and later the unstable Pakistan also got the Bomb.
b) his nuclear weapons facility is in ruins and his advantage lost. With his regime under real threat, Kim has been persuaded by those round him to tone down the rhetoric and seek a rapprochement with Beijing and Seoul. For a quiet life, Kim can continue to enjoy his lavish lifestyle and for the next 50 years live a life of luxury while his people continue to be brutalised and the rest of the world does nothing.
I can see a lot of positives for Kim, his coterie, for South Korea, Japan and China if the rhetoric is toned down and tensions are eased. Positives too for Washington - indeed, the only losers look to be the North Korean people who look condemned to continued brutality at the hands of the ludicrous Juche philosophy and their Government but no one else seems that bothered.
A busy weekend and I'm still catching up with things.
On matters Korean, why has Kim Yong-Il come to the negotiating table ? I've read two wildly differing hypotheses:
a) he has his nuclear deterrent so has no real fear of attack from the US or China. As a result, he can show diplomatic largesse to his neighbours from a position of strength while Washington will adapt to Pyonygang having nuclear weapons just as it did when first Communist China and later the unstable Pakistan also got the Bomb.
b) his nuclear weapons facility is in ruins and his advantage lost. With his regime under real threat, Kim has been persuaded by those round him to tone down the rhetoric and seek a rapprochement with Beijing and Seoul. For a quiet life, Kim can continue to enjoy his lavish lifestyle and for the next 50 years live a life of luxury while his people continue to be brutalised and the rest of the world does nothing.
I can see a lot of positives for Kim, his coterie, for South Korea, Japan and China if the rhetoric is toned down and tensions are eased. Positives too for Washington - indeed, the only losers look to be the North Korean people who look condemned to continued brutality at the hands of the ludicrous Juche philosophy and their Government but no one else seems that bothered.
Anyway, evening to those interested in serious discussion or debate
Are we then to believe the Independent's story on the Government's post-Brexit immigration thinking ?
It strikes me as asking the same question as about a Customs Union - when is Freedom of Movement not Freedom of Movement ? When it's defined by the British Government it would seem.
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
It really is over the top and the full on media attacks must be providing support for Rudd from the party.
However, there is another agenda here from conservative Brexiteers who see her as a BINO and want her out. Andrew Pierce on Marr this morning was gunning for her as are some on here.
I think the hard Brexiteers see the writing on the wall and are turning their fire on both TM and Amber Rudd who both supported remain.
I think Brexit without a customs union is dead in the water,
If it's thought that getting rid of Rudd might help the Tories hold places like Westminster and Wandsworth than I think she'll probably be sacrificed for the sake of the party.
If it's thought that getting rid of Rudd might help the Tories hold places like Westminster and Wandsworth than I think she'll probably be sacrificed for the sake of the party.
Good point - I hadnt thought of that though I doubt it would make much difference
A busy weekend and I'm still catching up with things.
On matters Korean, why has Kim Yong-Il come to the negotiating table ? I've read two wildly differing hypotheses:
a) he has his nuclear deterrent so has no real fear of attack from the US or China. As a result, he can show diplomatic largesse to his neighbours from a position of strength while Washington will adapt to Pyonygang having nuclear weapons just as it did when first Communist China and later the unstable Pakistan also got the Bomb.
b) his nuclear weapons facility is in ruins and his advantage lost. With his regime under real threat, Kim has been persuaded by those round him to tone down the rhetoric and seek a rapprochement with Beijing and Seoul. For a quiet life, Kim can continue to enjoy his lavish lifestyle and for the next 50 years live a life of luxury while his people continue to be brutalised and the rest of the world does nothing.
I can see a lot of positives for Kim, his coterie, for South Korea, Japan and China if the rhetoric is toned down and tensions are eased. Positives too for Washington - indeed, the only losers look to be the North Korean people who look condemned to continued brutality at the hands of the ludicrous Juche philosophy and their Government but no one else seems that bothered.
Kim Yong il died in 2000 and retired as prime minister in 2010, so is unlikely to be influential in anything that Kim Jong-Un decides to do.
A busy weekend and I'm still catching up with things.
On matters Korean, why has Kim Yong-Il come to the negotiating table ? I've read two wildly differing hypotheses:
a) he has his nuclear deterrent so has no real fear of attack from the US or China. As a result, he can show diplomatic largesse to his neighbours from a position of strength while Washington will adapt to Pyonygang having nuclear weapons just as it did when first Communist China and later the unstable Pakistan also got the Bomb.
b) his nuclear weapons facility is in ruins and his advantage lost. With his regime under real threat, Kim has been persuaded by those round him to tone down the rhetoric and seek a rapprochement with Beijing and Seoul. For a quiet life, Kim can continue to enjoy his lavish lifestyle and for the next 50 years live a life of luxury while his people continue to be brutalised and the rest of the world does nothing.
I can see a lot of positives for Kim, his coterie, for South Korea, Japan and China if the rhetoric is toned down and tensions are eased. Positives too for Washington - indeed, the only losers look to be the North Korean people who look condemned to continued brutality at the hands of the ludicrous Juche philosophy and their Government but no one else seems that bothered.
Kim Yong il died in 2000 and retired as prime minister in 2010, so is unlikely to be influential in anything that Kim Jong-Un decides to do.
It really is over the top and the full on media attacks must be providing support for Rudd from the party.
However, there is another agenda here from conservative Brexiteers who see her as a BINO and want her out. Andrew Pierce on Marr this morning was gunning for her as are some on here.
I think the hard Brexiteers see the writing on the wall and are turning their fire on both TM and Amber Rudd who both supported remain.
I think Brexit without a customs union is dead in the water,
Tomorrow's statement will be critical. This isn't about Windrush any more but about whether Rudd has misled Parliament. Even if it was accidental (which I'm sure it was) the evidence is she wasn't (she may be now, she may not) in full control of her Department and that makes her look weak and vulnerable.
The bigger issue remains the CU - as a LEAVE voter I fully understood membership of the SM and CU was incompatible with us seeking to find a new economic identity as "Global Britain". I've no problem with the EU trying to achieve the best deal with us (they would, wouldn't they ?) and there may be some aspects of the CU we can emulate in the post-EU economic relationship but we can't be in the EU's Customs Union.
It really is over the top and the full on media attacks must be providing support for Rudd from the party.
However, there is another agenda here from conservative Brexiteers who see her as a BINO and want her out. Andrew Pierce on Marr this morning was gunning for her as are some on here.
I think the hard Brexiteers see the writing on the wall and are turning their fire on both TM and Amber Rudd who both supported remain.
I think Brexit without a customs union is dead in the water,
Tomorrow's statement will be critical. This isn't about Windrush any more but about whether Rudd has misled Parliament. Even if it was accidental (which I'm sure it was) the evidence is she wasn't (she may be now, she may not) in full control of her Department and that makes her look weak and vulnerable.
The bigger issue remains the CU - as a LEAVE voter I fully understood membership of the SM and CU was incompatible with us seeking to find a new economic identity as "Global Britain". I've no problem with the EU trying to achieve the best deal with us (they would, wouldn't they ?) and there may be some aspects of the CU we can emulate in the post-EU economic relationship but we can't be in the EU's Customs Union.
If it's thought that getting rid of Rudd might help the Tories hold places like Westminster and Wandsworth than I think she'll probably be sacrificed for the sake of the party.
Good point - I hadnt thought of that though I doubt it would make much difference
Control of Westminster could come down to a handful of votes in one or two wards. The Tories don't want to lose the council containing most of the country's most iconic buildings and prestigious institutions.
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
But all countries discriminate to a certain extent based on nationality, and almost all favour close neighbours.
Why?
1. Nationality is a useful heuristic. (To give a silly example: we can't expect our immigration authorities to treat all universities as of equal merit, but nor can we expect them to be in charge of rating 10,000 educational institutions.)
2. Because countries tend to have close relations with their neighbours.
So, NZ and Australia discriminate in favour of each other, as do Canada and the US, as do we and Ireland.
We will never have completely non-discriminatory immigration policies, and nor should we have. It's good to keep things like working holiday visas for Australians and Canadians.
So instead of offering anything approaching analysis or comment or argument, you pick me up on one mistake.
You must be a teacher !
I plead guilty, m'lud!
On the substantive point however, since you seem piqued by my levity, your post doesn't actually get us very far. You take three paragraphs to say essentially we have bugger all idea why he's acting like this. Which isn't terribly helpful, TBH, even if you hadn't muddled up the name of the current monarch Dictator.
That said, the truth is we have so little information of any kind - even reliable background information - that any speculation is likely to be wrong. As matters stand, Kim is making friendly noises. I can quite understand everyone is anxious to see where they lead. Anything is better than him and Trump trading nuclear threats about the size of their respective buttons on Twitter.
As for the people of North Korea, yes, this makes it less likely they can be liberated. That is a tragedy for them. And to quote John Donne, no man is an island. However, since that was never going to happen anyway (if there had been a war, they would all have been killed) I'm not sure what difference it makes in practice. Similarly, let's face it, the record of the US in liberating people from appalling tyrannies and establishing successful democracies is approximately 100% - 100% disastrous, that is.
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
But all countries discriminate to a certain extent based on nationality, and almost all favour close neighbours.
Why?
1. Nationality is a useful heuristic. (To give a silly example: we can't expect our immigration authorities to treat all universities as of equal merit, but nor can we expect them to be in charge of rating 10,000 educational institutions.)
2. Because countries tend to have close relations with their neighbours.
So, NZ and Australia discriminate in favour of each other, as do Canada and the US, as do we and Ireland.
We will never have completely non-discriminatory immigration policies, and nor should we have. It's good to keep things like working holiday visas for Australians and Canadians.
I thought the UK points system for skilled migrants DID treat all credited universities as equivalent for points.
How useful would a poll be for the locals? There are so many factors at play that polls might be almost as misleading as they are for general elections.
We've had London polling, although some on the regions would be interesting. Does anyone know of any?
It really is over the top and the full on media attacks must be providing support for Rudd from the party.
However, there is another agenda here from conservative Brexiteers who see her as a BINO and want her out. Andrew Pierce on Marr this morning was gunning for her as are some on here.
I think the hard Brexiteers see the writing on the wall and are turning their fire on both TM and Amber Rudd who both supported remain.
I think Brexit without a customs union is dead in the water,
Tomorrow's statement will be critical. This isn't about Windrush any more but about whether Rudd has misled Parliament. Even if it was accidental (which I'm sure it was) the evidence is she wasn't (she may be now, she may not) in full control of her Department and that makes her look weak and vulnerable.
The bigger issue remains the CU - as a LEAVE voter I fully understood membership of the SM and CU was incompatible with us seeking to find a new economic identity as "Global Britain". I've no problem with the EU trying to achieve the best deal with us (they would, wouldn't they ?) and there may be some aspects of the CU we can emulate in the post-EU economic relationship but we can't be in the EU's Customs Union.
Absolutely. Brexit is pointless if we do.
Even the Economist recognises its flaws: the EU could sell access to our market in future without any say from us at all, in whatever suits their best interests, not ours.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
I believe retail workers are a huge chunk of low skilled labour, and their salaries could certainly be done in a way to qualify for an "open to all" scheme. There really has to be a salary or qualifications limit for it to work.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
It really is over the top and the full on media attacks must be providing support for Rudd from the party.
However, there is another agenda here from conservative Brexiteers who see her as a BINO and want her out. Andrew Pierce on Marr this morning was gunning for her as are some on here.
I think the hard Brexiteers see the writing on the wall and are turning their fire on both TM and Amber Rudd who both supported remain.
I think Brexit without a customs union is dead in the water,
Tomorrow's statement will be critical. This isn't about Windrush any more but about whether Rudd has misled Parliament. Even if it was accidental (which I'm sure it was) the evidence is she wasn't (she may be now, she may not) in full control of her Department and that makes her look weak and vulnerable.
The bigger issue remains the CU - as a LEAVE voter I fully understood membership of the SM and CU was incompatible with us seeking to find a new economic identity as "Global Britain". I've no problem with the EU trying to achieve the best deal with us (they would, wouldn't they ?) and there may be some aspects of the CU we can emulate in the post-EU economic relationship but we can't be in the EU's Customs Union.
Absolutely. Brexit is pointless if we do.
Even the Economist recognises its flaws: the EU could sell access to our market in future without any say from us at all, in whatever suits their best interests, not ours.
Potentially there is room from our side to have a customs union in select manufactured goods that mainly sell regionally - packaged food and drink, cars etc. But I would guess the EU would call that cherry picking.
How useful would a poll be for the locals? There are so many factors at play that polls might be almost as misleading as they are for general elections.
We've had London polling, although some on the regions would be interesting. Does anyone know of any?
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
I believe retail workers are a huge chunk of low skilled labour, and their salaries could certainly be done in a way to qualify for an "open to all" scheme. There really has to be a salary or qualifications limit for it to work.
I'm much more relaxed than you. I think it's great that a 22 year old Brit can go to Paris and work for a year in a Patisserie, and have no particular issue with the Czech girl in my local Starbucks*.
What I have more of an issue with is the fact that people can come here and receive benefits without having paid in. I have an issue that we cannot get rid of - or bar - people who have committed crimes.
It doesn't seem to me that we need a system much more onerous than the US one.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
I would agree but the HOC numbers make it very likely and no leader, even JRM, can change the opposition to leaving a customs union
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
But all countries discriminate to a certain extent based on nationality, and almost all favour close neighbours.
Why?
1. Nationality is a useful heuristic. (To give a silly example: we can't expect our immigration authorities to treat all universities as of equal merit, but nor can we expect them to be in charge of rating 10,000 educational institutions.)
2. Because countries tend to have close relations with their neighbours.
So, NZ and Australia discriminate in favour of each other, as do Canada and the US, as do we and Ireland.
We will never have completely non-discriminatory immigration policies, and nor should we have. It's good to keep things like working holiday visas for Australians and Canadians.
Why should our system not be non discriminatory? The fact other countries choose to discriminate in favour of particular neighbours is no reason for us to do so. Apart from the language advantages why would it be better for us to give preferential treatment to a Canadian rather than a Peruvian? One of the reasons for getting out of the EU was to put an end to such discriminatory practices which act against our best interests. We should not be swapping one kind of favouritism for another.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Comments
I've decided to start posting on Twitter from time to time. So if you could all follow me, my 'handle' (or whatever it's called) is
@marketwarbles
https://twitter.com/wjharte/status/990626655663280128
Or has someone just made it up?
She is getting on with the day job.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/990636472868003845
Hurrah for Hodges impartiality.
Watch a suborbital rocket launch and landing in a minute at: https://www.blueorigin.com/#youtubeZUV53Nn3PhA
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
I really like Blue Origin, despite some of their silliness. They've got very different aims to SpaceX and have vastly different funding schemes, but both require cheap access to space. As far as I'm concerned that's good for humanity.
Although if Virgin ever get Spaceship 2 working, there should be some interesting choices and competition: do you want to experience weightlessness in a rocket plane or a capsule?
More info from Blue here:
https://www.blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/uk/uk-politics/next-home-secretary/226781851/
I'm also intrigued that Rudd is being so heavily briefed against. It almost looks personal rather than political. If so, May will be very loath to part with her. Moreover, since New Labour and Brown, Byers and Blair himself a precedent has been set that Ministers who mislead the House in error (Blair) through forgetfulness (Brown) or even because they are dishonest morons who lie, cheat and take money not because they need to but because it's in their nature (Byers) don't actually have to resign.
That's a fairly damning indictment of the standards of old Mr Whiter than White, and I think Rudd should go. I'm just sceptical if she will.
Edit - looking at the time Byers misled the House 15 years ago, what's really amusing in this context is the reaction of his Conservative Shadow:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1393505/Byers-admits-misleading-MPs-in-Sixsmith-affair.html
Guess who it was?
Unless I suppose her replacement is the Jezaster...
Isn't that the sort of tokenism that demeans politics? If he gets the job that is fine if it is on ability. If he gets it because he is an ethnic minority with an interesting cover story I am not so sure it is a good idea. People are heartily sick of the Blairite/Cameron spin on things - they take us all for mugs who cannot see the smoke and mirrors. I think we live in a post spin age, Cameron/Osborne taunted Brown about him being PM in a digital age but having analogue presentation skills. I think many of todays politicians and commentators have a similar disconnect. The game has changed and those who seek to lead do not even notice the difference!
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
My guess is that the number returning home would remain fairly constant in this scenario, but you'd probably see the number coming fall by a third or so. That would make net EU migration a fairly negligable number: perhaps only an eighth of the level of non-EU migration.
That seems to be the usual qualification...
Presumably reciprococity in terms of work in the EU could be agreed, but for retirees may be more problematic, unless that too was mutual.
She'll resign this week.
You may be right but on balance I think she will stay in post
Sajid Javid is one of the very few Tories that could turn my head to the blues
“This latest revelation suggests (Mr Byers/insert name as applicable) either misled Parliament, the press and the public, or that he has no grip on his/her department.
"Either way (s)he must now come to the House of Commons and answer allegations that (s)he misled MPs."
T-Mobile agrees $26bn mega-merger with Sprint
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43943848
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/29/eu-considering-freeze-subsidies-illiberal-member-states/
Under proposals to be unveiled in Brussels this week by Guenther Oettinger, the EU’s budget commissioner, Eastern EU states like Poland and Hungary could feel a financial squeeze if they were deemed to have failed to live up to the founding values of the EU.
Brown managed 13 years of course, but he was quite exceptionally limpet like!
Would that mean no more freebies?
He's the Commissioner for the EU budget. Cutting down on Cohesion Funds.
"We will not accept arbitrary mechanisms which will make the funds an instrument of political pressure, Poland's deputy European affairs minister Konrad Szymanski said."
It's been a daily drip, drip, drip of revelations and each one gets worse and worse.
This isn't going away and my general rule of thumb is that if a SoS doesn't "close down" a scandal within a week they are usually toast in the end...
This has been rumbling on and getting worse and worse for well over a week now so...
A busy weekend and I'm still catching up with things.
On matters Korean, why has Kim Yong-Il come to the negotiating table ? I've read two wildly differing hypotheses:
a) he has his nuclear deterrent so has no real fear of attack from the US or China. As a result, he can show diplomatic largesse to his neighbours from a position of strength while Washington will adapt to Pyonygang having nuclear weapons just as it did when first Communist China and later the unstable Pakistan also got the Bomb.
b) his nuclear weapons facility is in ruins and his advantage lost. With his regime under real threat, Kim has been persuaded by those round him to tone down the rhetoric and seek a rapprochement with Beijing and Seoul. For a quiet life, Kim can continue to enjoy his lavish lifestyle and for the next 50 years live a life of luxury while his people continue to be brutalised and the rest of the world does nothing.
I can see a lot of positives for Kim, his coterie, for South Korea, Japan and China if the rhetoric is toned down and tensions are eased. Positives too for Washington - indeed, the only losers look to be the North Korean people who look condemned to continued brutality at the hands of the ludicrous Juche philosophy and their Government but no one else seems that bothered.
Having become the first person in two millennia to achieve bodily resurrection, he wants to show off.
End of.
That works.
Good night.
You must be a teacher !
This is getting boring now. We need to move on.
Are we then to believe the Independent's story on the Government's post-Brexit immigration thinking ?
It strikes me as asking the same question as about a Customs Union - when is Freedom of Movement not Freedom of Movement ? When it's defined by the British Government it would seem.
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
However, there is another agenda here from conservative Brexiteers who see her as a BINO and want her out. Andrew Pierce on Marr this morning was gunning for her as are some on here.
I think the hard Brexiteers see the writing on the wall and are turning their fire on both TM and Amber Rudd who both supported remain.
I think Brexit without a customs union is dead in the water,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Yong-il
The bigger issue remains the CU - as a LEAVE voter I fully understood membership of the SM and CU was incompatible with us seeking to find a new economic identity as "Global Britain". I've no problem with the EU trying to achieve the best deal with us (they would, wouldn't they ?) and there may be some aspects of the CU we can emulate in the post-EU economic relationship but we can't be in the EU's Customs Union.
Are the Tories going to regain Croydon next Thursday ? I suspect not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2018
Why?
1. Nationality is a useful heuristic. (To give a silly example: we can't expect our immigration authorities to treat all universities as of equal merit, but nor can we expect them to be in charge of rating 10,000 educational institutions.)
2. Because countries tend to have close relations with their neighbours.
So, NZ and Australia discriminate in favour of each other, as do Canada and the US, as do we and Ireland.
We will never have completely non-discriminatory immigration policies, and nor should we have. It's good to keep things like working holiday visas for Australians and Canadians.
On the substantive point however, since you seem piqued by my levity, your post doesn't actually get us very far. You take three paragraphs to say essentially we have bugger all idea why he's acting like this. Which isn't terribly helpful, TBH, even if you hadn't muddled up the name of the current
monarchDictator.That said, the truth is we have so little information of any kind - even reliable background information - that any speculation is likely to be wrong. As matters stand, Kim is making friendly noises. I can quite understand everyone is anxious to see where they lead. Anything is better than him and Trump trading nuclear threats about the size of their respective buttons on Twitter.
As for the people of North Korea, yes, this makes it less likely they can be liberated. That is a tragedy for them. And to quote John Donne, no man is an island. However, since that was never going to happen anyway (if there had been a war, they would all have been killed) I'm not sure what difference it makes in practice. Similarly, let's face it, the record of the US in liberating people from appalling tyrannies and establishing successful democracies is approximately 100% - 100% disastrous, that is.
We've had London polling, although some on the regions would be interesting. Does anyone know of any?
Even the Economist recognises its flaws: the EU could sell access to our market in future without any say from us at all, in whatever suits their best interests, not ours.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
What I have more of an issue with is the fact that people can come here and receive benefits without having paid in. I have an issue that we cannot get rid of - or bar - people who have committed crimes.
It doesn't seem to me that we need a system much more onerous than the US one.
* This was before I moved to LA, of course.